









| J LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. J| 

\H h *v $<w¥* p:WJb. 

JMe/ 15 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ] 












In 

H 

9 ■ 



H 






BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 



VIEWS OF THE 



SONSHIP OF CHRIST, 

THE COMFORTER, AND TRINITY. 
WITH AN APPENDIX 

ON THE 

ATONEMENT. 

By ASA WILBUR. 

SecontJ lEtiitton, &r&tsctr anfc 3Enlargetr. 



BOSTON: 
A.WILLIAMS AND COMPANY, 

135 Washington Street. 
1875. 






Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1875, 

By ASA WILBUR, 

In the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington. 










Stereotyped at the Boston Stereotype Foundry, 
19 Spring Lane. 



PREFACE. 



The sentiments presented to the Christian 
public in the following little work are not the 
result of hastily or recently adopted conclusions. 
For more than forty years they have existed as 
settled convictions in the author's mind. 

They have been a solace and satisfaction to 
him in no ordinary sense. 

They have been a triumphant support under 
all the vicissitudes of a protracted life ; not, in- 
deed, to the exclusion or disparagement in any 
wise of any one of the great vital Scriptural 
truths essential to true discipleship and practical 
godliness : indeed, he maintains that these fun- 
damental doctrines themselves are more clearly 
seen, and their simplicity and consistency better 
'understood and more truly appreciated, from the 
point of view set forth in the following pages, 
than from the usual exposition of them. 

3 



It has seemed to the writer well nigh unac- 
countable, that what appear to him to be the 
plain teachings of the New Testament, and es- 
pecially those of Christ personally, should have 
been misapprehended, and theories adopted in 
their place which certainly are unnatural, and 
confessedly shrouded in impenetrable mystery. 

Should the question be asked, Why have not 
these sentiments, these long-cherished convic- 
tions, been sooner made public ? The reply is, 
An extreme reluctance at the thought of advan- 
cing doctrines the writer knew would not be fully 
in accord with those of his brethren, with whom 
he has so long and so happily toiled, to advance 
the kingdom of their common Redeemer. He 
shrunk from exciting their apprehensions and sus- 
picions, which he well knew would be the natural 
result. These, with some minor considerations, 
have hitherto prevented his views from being 
publicly known. It would not be strange if mis- 
conceptions of the course of thought, or, indeed, 
a full sense of the author's meaning, should excite 
opposition. He is aware of the position he has 
taken ; but an assured sense of fidelity to the sim- 
ple teachings of the Saviour of men abundantly 



PREFACE. 5 

sustains him as he ventures out of his usual pur- 
suit in life, and commits himself to his Master 
and the public. 

He is conscious that what is brought forward 
in the following treatise, is but an outline of what 
might and what ought to be said on the subjects 
treated. 

That the " Spirit of truth," the Comforter, whose 
prerogative it is to " guide into all truth," may en- 
- lighten and conduct the reader as he contemplates 
these important subjects, is the prayer of 

The Author. 



SONSHIP OF CHRIST, THE COMFORTER, 
AND THE TRINITY. 



Statement of Views. 

Before the creation of any object, there ex- 
isted the one almighty, omniscient, self-existent 
Deity, who filled all space, having cognizance of 
all objects and actions. 

At a period in the existence of this eternal 
God, before any other creative act known to us, 
he brought forth, or begot, a being of the na- 
ture, powers, and senses, such as he afterwards 
breathed into the body of Adam when he became 
a " living soul." In other words, he begot a per- 
fect human soul. 

Thus there were in existence before the crea- 
tion of the world two beings, — one the self-exist- 
ent God, the other the begotten being ; or, as we 
will now call them, Father and Son. Each has 
his own will : these wills being not at variance, 

9 



IO BIBLTCAL STANDPOINT. 

but in perfect harmony ; for, in the nature of 
things, a holy being could not beget an unholy. 

Before this period, God existed as only God ; 
but, so far as we know, not as Father, because 
there was no Son. The begotten being was Son 
— " the only begotten Son." 

The next act of the eternal God was to take 
this begotten being into perfect union with Jiim- 
sclf ; in other words, he incorporated this human 
soul into his own being, so that the two beings, 
with their distinct natures and wills, became by 
this union one. Separately they were two, but 
by this union One. A being thus constituted 
must necessarily have the nature, faculties, and 
powers belonging to each before their union. 
Thus there was in heaven, before the creation, 
a complex being, divine and human, — divine, be- 
cause one of his component parts is the eternal 
God ; human, because the other part is the begot- 
ten human s6ul or Son. 

The nature or manner of this union we do not 
attempt to explain ; but its reality is conceivable, 
and no more mysterious than our own constitu- 
tion. We are composed of spirit and matter, each 
as really unlike the other as deity and humanity ; 
and yet these two, matter and spirit, are so united 
as to constitute one person, yet acting in perfect 
harmony, each retaining its distinctive properties. 
But the manner or nature of this union is inex- 



STATEMENT OF VIEWS. II 

plicable. Now, as we can conceive of, but can- 
not explain, this union of our own nature, even 
so we may conceive of, but cannot explain, the 
union of deity and humanity. The fact is as 
reasonable and admissible in the one case as in 
the other. 

We are now prepared to look at the accounts 
of the creation ; and we must not lose sight of the 
character of the being who is the Creator. It is 
the complex being, — Father and Son, divine and 
human, i. e., human soul. The begotten Son, of 
himself, had no more power to create than Christ, 
as a mere man on earth, had power to do God's 
works : according to his own declaration, " The 
Son can do nothing of himself" (John v. 19) ; 
but, being one with the Almighty, by and with 
His power he could create. Hence the harmony 
of the two following passages : " In the beginning 
God created the heaven and the earth." " By 
him [Christ] were all things created that are in 
heaven and that are in earth " (Gen. i. 1 ; Col. 
i. 16). It was proper, therefore, to say God 
created and the Son created ; because they were 
united as one in the creation, the Father operat- 
ing with and in the Son, and the Son by and 
through the power of the Father. 

On this principle Jesus performed his miracles 
when on earth. He said to the leprous man, " I 
will ; be thou clean." There is no more mystery 



12 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

in this case than in that of the creation. All will 
see that it as really required divine power to heal 
the leper as to produce the light, or gather the 
waters together ; yet it is properly said that Christ 
healed the leper, though in reality God the Father 
performed the cure through his Son, according to 
the words of Jesus, " The Father that dwelleth in 
me, he doeth the works." 

After the material world was created, and the 
grand crowning work of the creation was to be 
accomplished, for the first time we hear of a com- 
munication between the two wills, or two beings, 
Father and Son, in heaven. It runs thus : " Let 
its make man in our image, after our likeness ; " 
that is, as we understand it, " Let us make a be- 
ing of the same nature, faculties, and senses, and 
of the same purity and holiness, as the begotten 
being which forms a part of Ourself." The being 
that was to inhabit the earthly body was to be in 
all respects " in the image and likeness " of the 
first-begotten Son, who had been united with his 
Father. 

First, a tenement formed from the earth was 
prepared, adapted to the being who should inhabit 
it, in which he might develop and exercise him- 
self in his appointed sphere. Into this tenement 
God then breathed the breath of life, and man 
became a living soul ; not, however, a begotten 
Son united to the Father ; for God, in company 



STATEMENT OF VIEWS. 1 3 

with the pre-existing Son, created this human 
soul in the likeness of the one united to himself. 
It matters not which word is used — " breathed/' 
" created," or " said : " the work was the act of this 
complex being. All must see that the " breath- 
ing " needed an accompanying divine power ; for 
not only was a soul imparted, but animal life was 
given, and the earthly body made complete with 
its almost innumerable functions and powers. 

Thus man was formed and placed on earth by 
the same power and the same beings (for the word 
" us " is used by them) that formed whatever else 
was created. 

Hence there was placed on earth a being fitly 
emblematical of his Creator ; the spirit of the 
man corresponding to the deity of the Creator, 
the body corresponding to the begotten human 
soul, and the two natures in each case so united 
as to make one. In speaking of them, we call the 
Being in heaven " God," " Lord God," " God of 
Jacob," " God of Israel," and so on, each name 
including both natures acting together. The be- 
ing on earth we call " man," the term also includ- 
ing the two natures of which he is composed 
acting together : and, as the spirit of man never 
communicates except through the organs of the 
body, the inferior part acting with it, so the eter- 
nal Deity communicates with man only by and 
through the begotten human Son, the inferior 
part united with him. 



14 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

In this arrangement we see wisely established, 
before man was placed on earth, a channel or me- 
dium of communication between God in heaven 
and man on earth ; a being of the same species 
and nature as the human race, whose natural 
sympathies would be with his brother on earth, 
and so united to the eternal God that the divine 
sympathies, also, through him, could flow to man 
even in his fallen state. Apart from such union, 
we see not how God could have shown more sym- 
pathy towards rebellious man than towards rebel- 
lious angels. 

With this agree the words of the Lamb of God : 
" I am the way ; " and, " No man cometh unto the 
Father but by me" (John xiv. 6). 

After the lapse of about four thousand years from 
the creation of Adam, this begotten being, human 
soul, or Son, — by whichever term expressed, — 
who had dwelt " in the bosom of the Father," in 
happy union with him, from before the founda- 
tion of the world, and " by whom God created all 
things," left his celestial abode, and came down 
to earth ; where, by the divine energy, through 
the virgin Mary, a body was prepared for him. 
In this body, according to its capacity, he de- 
veloped his knowledge and wisdom. In leaving 
heaven, however, the Son did not cease to be 
united with his Father ; nor was this union less 
perfect on earth than it had been in heaven. 



STATEMENT OF VIEWS. 1 5 

But, " though he was rich, he became poor : " 
that is, he was divested of the glory and majesty 
which he had with his Father in heaven. This 
divesting was necessary, that he might appear as 
a servant, become familiar with his brother man 
in his fallen state, dwell with him as one of them, 
and " be tempted in all points like as we are, yet 
without sin." 

And now we have before us Christ as he was 
in Palestine, — truly God and truly man. Being, 
as to his soul, the " beginning of the creation 
of God," and as to his body, being " begotten 
of the Holy Ghost," he is in a twofold sense 
" the Son of God." Born of a woman as other 
men, he was placed by birth " under the law," 
and was naturally " the Son of man." And since, 
as before stated, he is so united to God that he 
and his Father are One, we have God and man, 
divinity and humanity, complete in the person of 
Jesus Christ. Thus we see the divinity of the 
eternal God is the divinity of the Son. 

We have thus stated, as clearly and simply as 
we can, our views of the origin of the divinity 
and humanity of the Lord Jesus Christ. Are 
these views in accordance with the word of God ? 
are they taught in that sacred volume ? If so, 
they are true, and must ultimately prevail, all con- 
flicting theories on the subject, ancient or modern, 
to the contrary notwithstanding. 



\6 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

It is not at all improbable that many, on read- 
ing thus far, will cast this little treatise aside, 
denouncing it as heretical, and unworthy of fur- 
ther attention. They have been taught, and be- 
lieve, that the divinity of Christ, his sonship, &c, 
are a mystery, utterly incomprehensible by human 
reason. Multitudes of Christ's children, learned 
and unlearned, past and present, have stilled their 
inquiries with this conclusion. 

Would it not be well that the Christian reader 
should carefully examine the subject before pro- 
nouncing judgment? The Bereans "searched 
the Scriptures daily, whether those things were 
so ; " and all know the beneficial result. 

Before proceeding to an examination of the 
Scriptures, let us quote the language of one of 
our theological professors, whose sentiments we 
most heartily adopt. 

" Our fundamental principle is, that the Scrip- 
tures alone arc our guide in all matters of faith 
and practice. To this principle we should unhesi- 
tatingly conform, whatever may be the result. We 
should not shrink from its application, even if it 
should overturn customs which have been most 
venerated by us, and should lead us to act contrary 
to all the teachings of our fathers." — Bib. Sacra, 
p. 29, vol. 30. 

On just this " fundamental principle" we have 
endeavored to study the Scriptures ; and it has 



PRE-EXISTENCE OF CHRIST. \J 

constrained us to adopt the doctrines herein pre- 
sented. If the reader will adhere to this prin- 
ciple in examining these subjects, we shall have 
no fears for the truth. 

Once more: in the examination of Scripture 
now to be made, we adopt and recommend an- 
other undoubted rule of interpretation, as fol- 
lows : — 

" We should never have recurrence to a strained 
or metaphysical sense, but when we know, that, 
either from the nature of the thing, or f win some 
other revelation of Scripture, it will not admit of 
a proper one. We must ttnderstand words in their 
proper and natural sense, when there is no appar- 
ent reason for a figure! 1 

Pre-existence of Christ. 

We will now take up the sacred volume, con- 
fidently believing that the writers thereof wrote 
as they were moved by the Holy Spirit ; and we 
will look to the same Guide to direct us in our 
examinations. 

That Christ, as the Son of God, did exist be- 
fore his incarnation, is admitted by all or nearly 
all evangelical Christians. One would suppose 
that the assertion of Christ, "Before Abraham 
was, I am " (John viii. 50), would be decisive, and 
convince the most scrupulous of the fact. He 
2 



15 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

evidently intended to convey the idea that he 
existed before the days of Abraham. He was so 
understood. If he thus intended, and did not so 
exist, he was either a lunatic or guilty of false- 
hood ; and the Jews were right in rejecting him. 
But we "believe and are sure that he was the 
Christ, the son of the living God," and that he 
did exist before Abraham. 

Again he says (John xvii. 5), " Now, O Father, 
glorify thou me with thine own self, with the 
glory which I had with thee before the world 
was." Here Jesus appeals to the Almighty God 
as to the truth that he was with Him before the 
creation. Paul taught the same to several of the 
churches. To the Colossians he says (chap. i. 
17), " He was before all things," &c. On this 
point we need not quote further, as it is not gen- 
erally disputed by evangelical believers. 

Sonship of Christ. 

Having treated of the Pre-existence of Christ, 
the question now is, In what character did he 
exist ? The usual answer is, As the divine, eter- 
nal Son of God ; or perhaps as the second person 
in the divine Trinity. 

In answering this question, our first point will 
be to show that the Scriptures chiefly relied on 
to prove the eternal existence of the Son do not 



SONSHIP OF CHRIST. 1 9 

sustain that doctrine ; but that many of them, as 
well as others, fully show that his existence had 
a beginning. But, before proceeding further, let 
us ask ourselves, Can we lay aside preconceived 
views in examining this subject, and take the 
sacred volume as addressed to us personally, from 
our heavenly Father, for the purpose of teaching 
us his will and the principles of his kingdom ? 
Only in this spirit can we hope to succeed in our 
inquiries after truth. 

We can be sure of getting correct information 
only when willing to surrender, if needful, any 
previously formed doctrinal opinions. No person 
finds Christ to be a Saviour to himself personally, 
until he makes a complete surrender of all things 
else. Even so in learning " the things of Christ." 
However wise, we must become " fools " as to 
our wisdom, for Christ's sake. We must accept 
the inspired word as a child would take a lesson 
from his father ; and seek the enlightening aid 
of the Comforter, the Holy Spirit, who, the Sa- 
viour promised, should " guide us into all truth." 

As the venerable John Brown of Haddington 
said, on completing his Family Bible, " I have 
learned more of the true meaning of the Bible on 
my knees before God, than from all the commen- 
taries I ever consulted." , 

Following strictly the rules of interpretation 
to which we have referred, we think we are pre- 



20 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

pared to show, that the commonly received doc- 
trine of an eternal divine sonship having no sanc- 
tion in the Bible, must consequently have been 
of men ; and that the Son must be a distinct, de- 
rived being, as set forth in our first statement. 

The first eighteen verses of the first chapter 
of John's Gospel are much relied on as proving 
the eternity of the Logos or Son. Let us exam- 
ine this passage, " In the beginning — " In the 
beginning of what ? we ask. Surely not the be- 
ginning of eternity : eternity has no beginning ; 
otherwise it is not eternity. It is observable that 
John begins his history of Christ with the same 
words with which Moses commences his account 
of the creation of the world. " In the beginning 
God created the heavens and the earth " (Gen. 
i. i). John's "beginning," therefore, was evidently 
the same as that of Moses : most assuredly, then, 
they both refer to the beginning of the visible 
creation. 

Do these words in John's Gospel show that the 
Word, or Logos, was from eternity ? Do they 
bear a different meaning when used by John than 
when used by Moses ? Where is the authority 
for such difference ? How is it, then, that these 
three words have been relied on for these hun- 
dreds of years, and quoted by so many writers, 
as decisive proof that the Word or Son was from 
all eternity ? Placing these two narratives side 



SONSHIP OF CHRIST. 21 

by side, do they not teach that there was a period 
in God's existence when he commenced the crea- 
tion of the world, and that the Word or Son was 
with him at that period ? Do they take us beyond 
that period ? 

It will be seen that these narratives agree also 
in recognizing two beings — a plurality — present 
on the occasion. Moses says in verse 16, as has 
been noted, " And God said, Let us make man," 
&c, showing that two, at least, were employed in 
the formation of man : and it is noticeable that 
the original Hebrew word translated " God " is 
in the plural. We hence reasonably infer that 
there were two in the previous creation, — an in- 
ference that John supports when he says, " and 
the Word was with God" (showing that there 
were two : otherwise it could not with propriety 
be said that one was with another) ; which is 
also abundantly supported by other Scriptures, to 
which we shall hereafter refer. 

We see, then, that, if our views as to the period 
intended by John be correct, this strongest pas- 
sage in the hands of those who believe in the 
eternal generation of the Son proves nothing 
more than that the Son existed and was with 
God at the beginning of the creation, — a view to 
which we heartily subscribe. 

John does not say that the Word was or was 
not eternal. All he affirms is, that he was with 



22 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

God #t a certain period. One may infer that he 
had been eternally with him ; another, that he 
was with him just before the commencement of 
the creation. Both are inferences ; but neither, 
proof. 

The idea that all before the " beginning " of 
which John speaks must be eternal, has so long 
prevailed in the evangelical Church, that if one 
should inquire of a theologian whether there is 
Scripture evidence of the eternity of the Son of 
God, he would with much assurance refer to the 
first two verses of John's Gospel as settling the 
question. Should the authority of such a render- 
ing be disputed, he would call to his support the 
great body of writers of the evangelical Church 
on the subject, from the early fathers down to the 
present day. 

Commentators generally, following each other's 
sentiments, if not words, in their expositions on 
these verses, become so fixed in the belief that 
this passage supports the doctrine in question, 
that they unhesitatingly assert it as a fact. We 
will quote some modern writers in confirmation 
of this statement. 

Dr. John Gill, a learned English commentator, 
says of the second verse, " This is a repetition of 
what is before said, and is made to show the eter- 
nity of Christ ; and so proves not only the eternal 
existence, but his eternal existence with his Fa- 



SONSHIP OF CHRIST. 23 

ther, and also his eternal deity." Does the text 
warrant such a statement ? 

Matthew Henry says, in his remarks on this 
Scripture (and we would say that no writer we 
have known appears so m\ich at home in the 
Bible as he), " The beginning of time, in which 
all creatures were produced and brought into 
being, found this eternal Word in being." Note, 
it is Mr. Henry, and not the apostle, who calls 
the Word eternal. He adds, " He that was in 
the beginning never began." Mark this logic. 
Was there not a period in God's existence when 
he began to create the world ? Did not God 
exist before he began this or any other creation ? 
Could not the Word have been begotten at some 
period prior to the commencement of the crea- 
tion ? If Mr. Henry means any other beginning 
than the creation of our world, we cannot follow 
him, for we know of no other beginning except 
Jesus, who tells us he was " the beginning of 
creation " (Rev. iii. 14). 

Mr. Henry again says, on verse 2, " The same, 
the very same that we believe in and preach, was 
in the beginning with God : that is, he was from 
eternity!' 

So says Mr. Henry ; but is it in the text ? 
Again : " The history of man's redemption . . . 
was hid in God before all worlds /" and he quotes 
Eph. iii. 9. Thexommon translation reads thus : 



24 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

" The mystery which from the beginning of the 
world [not ' all worlds '] hath been hid in God, 
who created all things by Jesus Christ." An- 
other translation which we have consulted reads, 
" from ages has been hidden," &c. Query : What 
ages before the world was created ? 

Dr. Thomas Scott, in his commentary on this 
passage, speaks thus : " Nothing could exceed 
time but an immeasurable, incomprehensible eter- 
nity. Time began when the creation was called 
forth into existence by the Word himself : and in 
the beginning the Word was ; that is, from all 
eternity? Note, it is Dr. Scott who says " from 
all eternity." 

Dr. Adam Clarke, in his comments, says, "What 
was before creation must be eternal: therefore 
Jesus, who was ' before all things,' and who made 
all things, must necessarily be the eternal God " 
(the Italicizing is ours). 

These writers are selected because so well 
known and highly esteemed for piety and biblical 
knowledge. 

Now, who could have supposed that men so 
pious, devotional, and biblically learned could 
have drawn such deductions from these two 
verses, asserting them as facts, even misquoting 
Scripture to support a preconceived doctrine ? 
But so it is ; and no doubt they thought they 
were renderins; service to the kingdom of Christ. 



SONSHIP OF CHRIST. 2$ 

Let the reader turn to these two verses, and see 
if there is a word or a hint concerning an eternity 
in them. 

It will be seen, the supposed proof for the eter- 
nity of the Son, drawn from the passage cited, 
rests on the assumption that whatever existed 
prior to the creation must be eternal. This is 
the only fair deduction we can make from these 
declarations. Now, does the narrative of Moses 
or of John express or imply such an idea ? Was 
not Moses speaking simply of the creation of our 
world ? Does any one who reads his history im- 
agine he had any thought of what might have 
been previously created ? His object was to 
record the facts of the creation of the material 
world ; saying nothing, hinting nothing, concern- 
ing the origin of the Son of God : that was left 
for inspired writers of later days. Likewise with 
reference to the " beginning " of which John 
speaks : would any reader naturally, without pre- 
possession, suppose anything intended by his 
word "beginning," other than that of which Moses 
had written ? A man can draw such inferences 
as he chooses ; but to assert an inference as a 
fact, and then deduce proof from it, is a course of 
reasoning we are unable to follow. 

Let us now read the remainder of the verse : 
u and the Word was God." It will be remembered 
that in the third paragraph of our Statement of 



26 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

Views on page 10, the position is taken that God 
united the begotten Son to himself in such a way 
that the two became one. We will, for the pres- 
ent, assume the correctness of this position with 
regard to the Father and the Logos or Son. The 
reality of this union will be considered hereafter. 

If, then, the Logos or Word be a derived being, 
and if the Father took him into union with him- 
self in the manner we have assumed, it would be 
in accordance with John's use of language to call 
him God, on the ground of this union. In the 
fourteenth verse of this chapter John says, "And 
the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us." 
No one from this statement supposes John to 
mean that the Word, who " was with God, and 
was God," was transformed into human flesh. All 
understand that " he was made flesh " by being 
united to flesh, so that- he and flesh became one 
by such union. Was it more singular for John 
to say that the begotten Son, united to God his 
Father, was God, than that he should say he be- 
came flesh because he was united to flesh ? But 
John adds, " And we beheld his glory, the glory 
as of the only-begotten of the Father." 

What was this glory ? And to what does John 
refer when he says, " as of the only-begotten of 
the Father " ? Is the reference to the physical 
body of Christ ? True, that body was begotten 
of God ; but what glory was there of his mere 



SONSHIP OF CHRIST. 2J 

body, more than of the body of another man? 
Was it not the glory of the Father manifesting 
himself through the man Jesus, soul and body, 
that the apostles saw ? And this is according to 
Christ's words, "He that hath seen me hath seen 
the Father " (John xiv. 9). No one had seen the 
Father in any way but by his works which he had 
wrought in and by his Son. John uses similar 
language in his first Epistle, i. 1, 2 : "That which 
was from the beginning, which we have heard, 
which we have seen with our eyes, which we have 
looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the 
Word of life (for the life was manifested, and we 
have seen it, and bear witness, and show unto you 
that eternal life, which was with the Father, and 
was manifested unto us)." 

It is evident that John had never seen, heard, 
or handled anything of Christ except his human 
body, which of itself was merely flesh, blood, and 
bones ; and yet he says that he had seen, &c, the 
" Word of life," and " the eternal life which was 
with the Father, and was manifested unto us." 

Here, then, we see his familiar manner of ex- 
pression. What he had seen, heard, and handled 
could refer to one part only of Christ — his body ; 
and in this he is not misunderstood. Nearly all 
agree that that body which the apostles saw and 
handled was so united to the soul, and this soul 
and body were so united to God, that all three by 



28 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

this union became one person. We have thus 
three distinct natures joined in one person ; and, 
consequently, language applicable to any one of 
the three natures may include the whole person, 
— body, soul, and God. 

If, then, the derived Son was united to God as 
body is to soul, would it be more improper or un- 
natural for John to say that the " Word was God," 
than for him to say that " we have seen, handled, 
&c, the Word of life " ? Truly, the Word or Son 
was with God, and was God ; and the term 
" Christ," as we understand it, includes all the 
three natures united in one. 

In what respect does the language and meaning 
of John differ from ours ? We say " the Word 
was God," in precisely the same manner in which 
John said he " was God," and " was made flesh : " 
i. e., by union with each. If we could once get 
these ideas clearly into our minds, together with 
the fact that he and the Father were one in the 
only possible way in which deity and humanity 
can be one (that is, by union), then the first eigh- 
teen verses of John's Gospel, and the first two 
verses of his Epistle, would appear clear, natural, 
and rational. John seems to have had a much 
clearer knowledge of the origin, nature, and char- 
acter of Christ, and of the object of his errand 
into our world, than either of the other evangelists, 
or even Paul, who was so well instructed in the 



SONSHIP OF CHRIST. 29 

things of God's kingdom ; and he might well have 
this superiority, after his most sublime interview 
with Christ, and the revelation which he received 
from him in the desolate island. 

The Adversary thought that he had shut John 
out of the world, and put him quite beyond the 
power of further usefulness to the cause of truth, 
when he had him banished to that lonely island : 
but, as always in his onsets on Christ's kingdom, 
his work recoiled with double force on his own 
head ; for in what spot on the face of the earth 
could this apostle have been placed, where, all 
things considered, he would have been so useful 
to the cause of Christ ? 

Let the reader now judge whether there is any 
evidence of the eternity of the Son in these first 
verses of John's Gospel. Writers have, indeed, as 
already said, adduced them as conclusive proof of 
this doctrine. We think, however, when other 
passages shall have been considered, in another 
place, it will yet more plainly appear that such a 
view is wholly untenable. 

It is evident that John's whole object, in these 
first eighteen verses, is to explain the character 
of Christ ; and in the fourteenth and eighteenth 
verses he makes the " Word " of the first verse 
" the only-begotten Son." 

We next invite attention to Prov. viii. 22-30. 



30 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

As these verses are much to the point, and are 
often referred to as proving the eternal existence 
of the Son, we quote them entire. 

" The Lord possessed me in the beginning of 
his way, before his works of old. I was set up 
from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the 
earth was. When there were no depths, I was 
brought forth ; when there were no fountains 
abounding with water. Before the mountains 
were settled, before the hills was I brought forth : 
while as yet he had not made the earth, nor the 
fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the 
world. When he prepared the heavens, I was 
there : when he set a compass upon the face of 
the depth : when he established the clouds above : 
when he strengthened the fountains of the deep : 
when he gave to the sea his decree, that the wa- 
ters should not pass his commandment : when he 
appointed the foundations of the earth : then I 
was by him, as one brought up with him : and I 
was daily his delight, rejoicing always before 
him." 

The person here represented as speaking is 
wisdom personified : but the language is generally, 
and we think rightly, referred to the Messiah. In 
this view, the passage is often regarded as proof 
of his existence as Son from eternity. The prin- 
cipal argument for that view is drawn from the 
use of the word " everlasting " in the clause, " I 



SONSHIP OF CHRIST. 31 

was set up from everlasting." We are told that 
the word thus translated means " eternal " or 
" eternity," and that the corresponding Greek 
word in the New Testament has the same signifi- 
cation. Well, admit this : they are mostly so 
translated in the common version of both the Old 
and the New Testaments, especially in the mar- 
ginal readings. 

But it is well known that words often have 
meanings corresponding to the beings or objects 
to which they are applied. When this word refers 
to God, or any of his attributes, or to the spiritual 
life of the saints, it undoubtedly means eternal. 
In these cases, no limit or qualification is either 
expressed or implied. 

But, when it relates to hills (as in Gen. xlix. 26), 
or to the Levitical priesthood (as in Ex. xl. 15), 
or to mountains (as in Hab. iii. 6), it cannot mean 
eternal, but simply as long as the thing in ques- 
tion lasts. 

The verse last referred to ends thus : " His 
ways are everlasting." Here, its application being 
to God, the word denotes " eternal." Thus in this 
one verse the word has two significations : " eter- 
nal," as applied to Deity ; and a limitation of 
existence, as applied to mountains. 

But let us look a little more closely at the pas- 
sage in Proverbs. "The Lord [Jehovah] pos- 
sessed me in the beginning of his way." Does 



32 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

not this suggest the idea of two beings, — a supe- 
rior and an inferior, one possessing the other ? 
Does it not imply that the Father possessed the 
Son ? But it is asserted that the Father and the 
Son are not only equal, but inherently " the same 
in essence : " if so, would it not be just as proper 
to say that the Son possessed the Father, as that 
the Father possessed the Son ? 

The expression, " in the beginning of his way," 
like the similar language of Moses and John in 
the commencement of their narratives, evidently 
refers to the work of creation ; and it is worthy 
of note, that, more than a thousand years before 
John wrote, Solomon uses the same phraseology 
in reference to the same period, and also to the 
same person, — the Son of God. It was the period 
before the creation of the world ; and it seems 
clear that he meant to say, "Jehovah possessed 
me before the world was created ; " as we have no 
doubt that this was the meaning of John, both in 
his Gospel and in his Epistle. With respect to 
Solomon, the twenty-third verse confirms this 
view : " I was set up from everlasting, from the 
beginning, or ever the eaj'th was." 

Here the word " everlasting " is explained, and 
its meaning fixed as referring to a period before 
the creation. To prevent any misunderstanding, 
it is added, " or ever the earth was." The twenty- 
third verse is nearly a repetition of the twenty- 



SONSHIP OF CHRIST. 33 

second, as to the time when the Father possessed 
the Son : it only adds, " I was set up," to show 
that his being had a commencement. Is it asked, 
" When ? " The answer is, " Or ever the earth 
was ; " i. e., before the creation of the world. 

Can any one read these two verses, and reason- 
ably draw from them any other than the above 
conclusion ? The following verses seem to be 
confirmatory : verse 24, " When there were no 
depths, I was brought forth;" verse 25, " Before 
the mountains, before the hills was I brought 
forth." If this " I " referred to an eternal, divine 
Son, could such expressions as " I was set up," 
" I was brought forth," " Before the hills was I 
brought forth," be applicable to him ? What con- 
sistency would there be in the application of such 
expressions by Deity to Deity, — "Jehovah pos- 
sessed me in the beginning of his way," " Before 
the hills was I brought forth," " I was set up " ? 
All will at once see their inappropriateness. 

The remaining verses in the quotation from 
Proverbs are mostly confirmatory repetitions of 
those on which we have commented. They refer 
to the time when the Son existed with the Father. 
This time is marked quite emphatically in the 
thirtieth verse, " Then I was by him, as one 
brought up with him : and I was daily his delight, 
rejoicing always before him." 

This word " then " points unmistakably to the 
3 



34 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

period before described as " in the beginning of 
his way," " before his works of old," " from ever- 
lasting " (as that word is qualified), " from the be- 
ginning, or ever the earth was" (that is, before 
the creation, of which a sketch is given) ; and 
the whole text depicts a dutiful Son in inter- 
course with a loving Father, and harmonizes with 
all Christ's language in relation to his Father. 

Take, now, these nine verses together, and 
what do they affirm ? Is it not this : that the 
person described as speaking "was set up," 
"brought forth," or began his existence, before 
the heavens and the earth were created ? 

He "was daily his delight, rejoicing always be- 
fore him ; " i. e., as we understand it, happy in his 
presence. 

It seems as if the Son of God here takes 
special pains to prevent misunderstanding as to 
his existence and character. We say, as was re- 
marked on the passages from John's Gospel and 
Epistle, let the reader clearly apprehend the ideas 
which have been advanced, whether accepting 
them or not, and he will see how naturally the 
whole passage reads. There is but one word, 
"everlasting," that seems to favor the idea of 
existence from eternity ; and that word may 
properly be taken in its limited sense. Yet our 
ablest theological writers are wont to adduce this 
passage as proving the eternity of the Son. We 



SONSHIP OF CHRIST. 35 

can account for this only on the power of precon- 
ceived opinion. 

Let us suppose that the Son was a derived 
being, united to the Father, and attempted 
to convey to Solomon an idea of his origin 
and state before the creation : should we not ex- 
pect him to say just what Solomon here wrote ? 
His union with the Father is not, indeed, so posi- 
tively expressed as after his descent to earth ; yet 
the language is adapted to the purpose. Thus 
viewed, the passage makes good sense ; but we 
can see in it no good sense or fitness on the 
other scheme. We cannot conceive of God as 
thus "possessed," "set up," "brought forth," the 
delight of Jehovah, and " rejoicing always before 
him." 

To us, this must be another being, and in him- 
self alone less than God. 

John v. 26 is also introduced as evidence of 
the eternity of the Son. It reads thus : "As the 
Father hath life in himself, so hath he given to 
the Son to have life in himself." It is argued, 
that as the life of the Father is underived and 
eternal, the Son, having the same life, must also 
be eternal. 

We believe that the Son had eternal life, and 
could impart it to believers ; as he said, " I give 
unto them eternal life." But whence and how 
did he obtain it ? Was it inherent, underived, in 



36 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

him ? The passage itself answers the question : 
" So hath he given to the Son to have life in him- 
self." This declaration, therefore, instead of prov- 
ing the eternity of the Son, seems to prove quite 
the contrary. Certainly he had not eternal life 
until it was given him by the Father. 

It would be preposterous to say that God the 
Father gave to God the Son eternal life or any 
other attribute ; for if the Son in himself was God, 
" of the same essence as the Father," he would 
naturally have possessed it even as his Father. 

The question may arise, How could God im- 
part eternal life (life from all eternity) like his 
own ? We answer, In no other way than by that 
peculiar union by which the Son was incorporated 
with the Father. In the nature of things, God 
could not impart underived existence to any be- 
ing except by taking him into such a union with 
himself that the two become one, and the nature, 
powers, and attributes of each (eternal life in- 
cluded) are possessed by the united ONE. 

How perfectly in harmony with this view are 
all the teachings of the Saviour as to the connec- 
tion between the Father and himself ! " The 
Son can do nothing of himself [separately re- 
garded] but what he seeth the Father do : for 
whatsoever things he doeth, these also doeth the 
Son likewise" (John v. 19). "But of that day 
and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels 



SONSHIP OF CHRIST. 37 

which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Fa- 
ther" (Mark xiii. 32). 

This could not have been said of the Son if he 
had been in himself God as the Father was. Do 
not these statements fully imply that the Son, as 
a son only, was a distinct being, and inferior to 
the Father ? But when united to him, the very 
things which God the Father did, the same also 
did the Son ; and they were done on the same 
principle on which the creation of the world is 
ascribed at one time to God, and at another to 
the Son. 

On just this principle, we think, were all God's 
works and those of Christ performed. Many 
transactions in the New Testament are attrib- 
uted equally to God and to Christ. 

We will glance at one more passage often con- 
fidently urged as evidence of the eternity of the 
Son, and then leave this side of the question. 

Heb. i. 8, " But unto the Son he saith, Thy 
throne, O God, is for ever and ever." In this 
chapter, the writer shows the Christian Jews the 
superiority of the Son of God above all other 
created beings. To do this he quotes from 
several psalms the declarations of the Father to 
or concerning the Son, all of which were spoken 
many years before the incarnation ; and some of 
them were addressed to him even before the 
creation. In every one of these quotations, 



38 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

either in this chapter, or in the psalm from 
which they are taken, if we carefully study them 
with their context, we shall find the Son, as such, 
in a subordinate character to his Father. We 
could go into an analysis of them, if needed. At 
present we will only notice the one above, " Thy 
throne, O God," &c. 

This passage, thus separately stated, is posi- 
tive. The Father here calls his Son " God." 
One might say, if he is God, he is eternal ; but 
if we read the following verse, we shall find that 
the Father has anointed this Son, whom he calls 
God, " above his fellows." 

This anointing undoubtedly had reference to 
the ceremony, in the Mosaic economy, of induct- 
ing the high priest, and sometimes kings and 
prophets, into office by anointing them with the 
holy oil. 

When thus anointed, they were consecrated, 
and authorized to act in their respective offices ; 
and when utensils or other things were thus an- 
ointed, they were set apart exclusively to holy 
purposes. 

Note, it is God's holy oil with which the Son is 
said to have been anointed. For the preparation 
of that oil, and the care with which it was guard- 
ed from being used for any common purpose, or 
imitated, the reader is referred to Ex. xxx. 23-33 
inclusive. Does not this anointing most fitly 



SONSHIP OF CHRIST. 39. 

emblematize the anointing of the Son ? When 
God took him into union with himself, did he not 
thus anoint him with his own spirit "without 
measure " ? And was he not thus " filled with all 
the fulness of the Godhead bodily" ? And being 
thus spiritually anointed, he is properly inducted 
into the spiritual offices of priest, prophet, and 
king. And possessing all that the Father had, 
which of course included all the divine attributes 
and powers, was it not as proper that his Father 
should call him God as that John, under the in- 
fluence of the divine Spirit, should call him God ? 
Yes, he was God, not inherently, but by union ; 
and it was right that his Father should so call 
him, and that John and Thomas should call him 
God ; and it would be right and just if all the in- 
habitants of the earth should so call him, and 
worship him, "as over all, God blessed forever." 

Other passages sometimes adduced as proving 
the eternal existence of Christ as Son, if closely 
examined according to the rules of interpretation 
early laid down in this volume, will be found to 
prove only that Christ as Son existed before 
the creation. 

The so-called Scriptural idea of the Son's eter- 
nal existence, or an eternal second person in the 
Godhead, we are compelled to regard as wholly 
unsustained. We do not find a single passage 
which, rightly viewed, supports it. If, now, it 



40 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

can be plainly shown, as we think it can, that the 
Son's existence had a beginning, this would seem 
to settle the question. 

The consideration, then, to which we now in- 
vite attention, is that Christ existed as a human 
being before the creation of the world. 

In doing this we must examine his use of the 
pronouns "I" and "me," and other words by 
which he describes himself. In his general ap- 
pearance we suppose him to have been as other 
men. He was of the Hebrew nation, and of the 
tribe of Judah. He could trace his genealogy 
like other Jews. He had a legal father, a natural 
mother, brothers, and sisters, as others had. He 
was born of a woman, was a babe, nourished, and 
brought up as others ; was a boy, a lad, a young 
man, learned a trade, worked at it for a living, 
and became a man like others, except that in all 
these stages of life he was perfect and holy. 

If we are asked how we know that he was per- 
fect and holy, our answer is, If he had not been 
so, if on any occasion he had deviated from per- 
fect rectitude before God, the almighty Father 
could not have said to him when he was about 
thirty years old, "This is my beloved Son, in 
whom I am well pleased ; " nor could he have 
been fitted to make an acceptable atonement foi 
man's sin. 



SONSHIP OF CHRIST. 4 1 

Our information of his early life is very meagre. 
When he was twelve years old, he conversed with 
the rabbis and doctors in the temple on the great 
principles of God's kingdom, and astonished them 
by his answers ; and " he increased in wisdom 
and stature, and in favor with God and man." 

We learn nothing further of him until he was 
about thirty years of age, when he came down 
some sixty or seventy miles to his relative John, 
the forerunner, to be baptized by him. 

As to what occurred with him during the in- 
tervening eighteen years, we are left to con- 
jecture ; but we have no reason to suppose that 
in that interim he manifested any divine power, 
or claimed any divine authority. 

The nearest approach to this is his answer to 
his mother, when he was found in the temple, 
"Wist ye not that I must be about my Fathers 
business ? " Here he evidently claims God as 
his Father. 

Thus, up to his baptism, he stood before the 
community as any other man who was strictly 
moral and devout ; and after this the only differ- 
ence was that he devoted himself wholly to the 
spiritual and temporal good of the people, in his 
wonderful teachings and miracles, which, through 
the power of the Father, he performed ; for he 
says, u The Father that dwelleth in me, he 
doeth the works" (John xiv. 10). It is not a di- 



42 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

vine Son, but the Father, whom he speaks of as 
dwelling in him. 

Therefore, in all his intercourse with the peo- 
ple, he was wont to use the pronouns referring to 
himself as men commonly use them, and evident- 
ly was so understood. He made no reference to 
his connection with God except when he specially 
wished to bring this connection into view ; as in 
the words, " I and my Father are one." 

No one supposes that he prayed as a divine 
Son ; yet the pronouns that he applies to him- 
self in his prayers are used just as on other ordi- 
nary occasions. Thus he says, " I have glorified 
thee on the earth : I have finished the work which 
thou gavest me to do. ... O Father, glorify thou 
me" (John xvii. 4, 5). The pronouns "I" and 
"me" are here used in just the same sense as in 
the passages, " I have meat to eat that ye know 
not of" (John iv. 32), and, " Have I been so long 
time with you, and yet hast thou not known 
me?" 

In almost innumerable instances Jesus uses 
the pronoun " I " when referring merely to his 
humanity ; yet, as before observed, he sometimes 
includes in it his divinity, as when he says, "I 
have power to lay it [life] down ; and I have 
power to take it again." He must here mean his 
human life ; and the " I " includes his divinity : 
for as man he had no more power to take back 



SONSHIP OF CHRIST. 43 

his life than any other man ; and Paul says, " God 
raised him from the dead " (Acts xiii. 30). 

All the writers of the New Testament, when 
treating of Christ in his ordinary intercourse with 
men, speak of him as a man ; but when divinity 
was manifested in him, their language was gen- 
erally different. 

In many incidents of his life we see no signs 
of divinity, while in others we see little else than 
divinity. This all harmonizes perfectly when we 
remember that divinity and humanity are one in 
him. 

But let us now proceed to the more direct 
proofs of the position that Christ existed as a 
human being before the creation. 

If this can be settled from the Scriptures as a 
fact, the way will be prepared for the establish- 
ment of our other positions. To this end, we 
may refer to some passages already quoted for 
another purpose. 

First. We take the ground that the expres- 
sions "begotten," "set up," "brought forth," "first- 
born," " first-begotten," " only-begotten," " begin- 
ning of creation," &c, each and all, when applied 
to the existence of a being, naturally and neces- 
sarily convey the idea of a beginning of exist- 
ence ; and that to endeavor to force some other 
meaning upon them, in support of any doctrine, 
should not be countenanced in dealing with the 
Scriptures. 



44 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

All these expressions, and others of like im- 
port, are used by the sacred writers in reference 
to the Lord Jesus Christ before his incarnation. 
Now, as commencement of existence cannot be 
affirmed of deity or divinity, they must refer in 
some way to Christ as having had such com- 
mencement ; and since, as before seen, Christ 
did actually exist before the creation, while his 
body did not exist till about four thousand years 
afterwards, we are left to the alternative that the 
expressions above named refer to his human soul, 
if we admit, as most evangelical believers do, that 
he had such a soul. How he could make atone- 
ment for human souls without possessing one 
himself, is beyond our comprehension. On this 
last point, however, much more might be said. 

In Ps. ii. 7, 8, it is thus written : " The Lord 
hath said unto me, Thou art my Son : this day 
have I begotten thee. Ask of me," &c. This is 
generally taken as an address of the Father to the 
Son. If this is a correct view (and we have not 
heard it questioned), we have the Father declar- 
ing to the Son his sonship, and referring to a 
period when it commenced, — "this day." Now, 
other Scriptures, such as " in the beginning of his 
way," " before his works of old," " from the be- 
ginning, or ever the earth was " (Prov. viii. 22, 
23), show that the period marked by " this day " 
was before the creation. 



SONSHIP OF CHRIST. 45 

Since, then, this " Son " had a commencement 
of existence, and that commencement was before 
the creation, are we not shut up to the conclusion 
that this begotten son of Jehovah was no less than 
the human soul' of Christ ? What else could he 
be ? He could not be an eternal Son, for a time 
is designated by his Father when he was begot- 
ten, or had beginning of existence. Is there any- 
thing unnatural in this, or that looks like undue 
effort to make out a point ? 

Again : " The Word was made flesh, and dwelt 
among us ; and we beheld his glory, as of the only- 
begotten of the Father" (John i. 14). This Word 
is admitted to be the same being to whom Jeho- 
vah said, " Thou art my Son : this day have I 
begotten thee." Now, as John tells us that the 
Word was with God in the beginning, it follows 
that the expression used by Jehovah, " this day," 
must refer to the beginning spoken of by John. 
Hence we arrive at the same conclusion as above, 
viz., that Jehovah's Son, begotten at a certain 
period implied by the words " this day," could not 
have had eternal existence, but was necessarily 
that human being, our " elder brother," to whom 
God said, " Let us make man in our likeness, after 
our image." Was he not that soul of Christ that 
came down from heaven, " was made flesh, and 
dwelt among men," of whom John says, " We be- 
held his glory, the glory as of the only-begotten 
of the Father " ? 



46 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

Observe now how John connects the " Word " 
with the " Son " of the Psalmist. Jehovah says, 
" Thou art my Son : this day have I begotten 
thee ; " and John says, " We beheld his glory, as 
of the only --begotten of the Father." 

See also Ps. lxxxix. 26, 27. " He shall cry unto 
me, Thou art my Father, my God . . . also I will 
make him my first-born," &c. Does this lan- 
guage seem appropriate for God to use, speaking 
to a son of inherently equal existence, powers, 
and attributes with himself? How could God 
the Father make an eternal God the Son his 
first-born ? Would not the Son have been the 
same as the Father ? We are aware that this 
is primarily spoken of David ; but it is generally 
understood as referring to the Messiah. 

Let these two verses follow those quoted from 
the second Psalm, and suppose the language that of 
the Almighty Father to a literally begotten Son, 
soon after he was brought into existence, and see 
how appropriately they would read : " Thou art 
my Son : this day have I begotten thee." " Ask 
of me, and I will give thee the heathen for thine 
inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth 
for thy possession." " He shall cry unto me, 
Thou art my Father, my God, the rock of my 
salvation ; also I will make him my first-born, 
higher than the kings of the earth." 

The above well accords with all the language 



SONSHIP OF CHRIST. 47 

of the Father concerning the Son, especially with 
the declaration, "This is my beloved Son, in whom 
I am well pleased." 

Did not Jesus cry unto Him, " Father, save me 
from this hour " ? Did he not cry, " My God, my 
God, why hast thou forsaken me " ? And did he 
not make his Father the " rock of his salvation " 
during his whole ministry ? 

The being in this eighty-ninth Psalm is evi- 
dently the same to whom God said in the second 
Psalm, " Thou art my Son," &c, where, as has 
been shown, a period was fixed when he was be- 
gotten, a period previous to the creation. And 
let it be borne in mind that this Son, whose exist- 
ence began at a period before the creation, was 
the self-same Son addressed, at his baptism, by 
the Father. In this Psalm the Son is represented 
as calling God his Father and his God, and is an- 
swered by God with a promise that he should be 
his first-born, and as such placed higher than the 
kings of the earth. 

It is alleged that the term " first-born " is here 
given simply as a kind of title or position by which 
the receiver comes to possess special advantages ; 
and that reference is made to the Mosaic ritual, 
where the first-born in several ways had superi- 
ority. But, it will be remembered, in that dis- 
pensation the first-born received the advantages 
conferred on him on the ground of his being the 



48 * BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

first-born son in the family : that fact gave him 
the pre-eminence. Thus Christ, as having been 
the first-born of the human family, has the pre- 
eminence over all the children of men. 

His prior existence gives him the pre-eminence. 

This well agrees with God's decree in the sec- 
ond Psalm, " Thou art my Son : this day have I 
begotten thee : ask of me, and I will give thee the 
heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost 
parts of the earth for thy possession ; " and in 
the other Psalm, " I will make him my first-born, 
higher than the kings of the earth." Does he 
not receive the pre-eminence ? and does he not 
receive it on the ground of his being humanly 
the " first-born " or the " beginning " ? 

In Col. i. 15, Paul calls him the "first-born of 
every creature." What did Paul mean by that 
expression ? Would it not convey to an impartial 
mind that he was the first in the creation ? 

And when we find this so fully corroborated 
by other Scriptures, we are unable to attach to it 
any other meaning. If we are correct in so doing, 
what can this first-born be, other than the human 
soul of Jesus ? 

Once admit that the man Jesus, as to his soul, 
was literally " the only-begotten Son " (John iii. 
16), " the first-born of every creature," " the first- 
begotten " (Heb. i. 6), " the only-begotten of the 
Father," and was with him " before all things " 



SONSHIP OF CHRIST. 49 

(Col. i. 17), and by union with him (John x. 30) 
was clothed with divine attributes, then all these 
and other passages become clear and natural. 

The passages in John's Gospel having the same 
import are too numerous to mention. We will 
select a few of the most prominent ones, some of 
which seem, to us, to place the subject in such a 
light as to challenge controversy. 

" What and if ye shall see the Son of man as- 
cend up where he was before ? " (John vi. 62). 
Let us look a moment at this expression, " the 
Son of man." This title is applied in the New 
Testament to the Saviour more than forty times ; 
and, in all but two or three, Christ so calls him- 
self. For the most part it refers to his humanity 
alone, either to the soul or the body, but more 
frequently to both. In a few instances it includes 
his divinity, as when he justifies his language to 
the palsied man : " But that ye may know that 
the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive 
sins " (Matt. ix. 6) ; and again, " The Son of 
man shall send forth his angels " (Matt. xiii. 41). 
These and some other passages show his divine 
power ; and he tells us from whom he received 
this power : " the Father that dwelleth in me, he 
doeth the works." 

With this thought in view, let us again read 
the passage, " What and if ye shall see the Son 
of man ascend up where he was before ? " 
4 



50 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

But, according to the common theory, when 
Christ spoke these words there had never been 
a " Son of man " in heaven, but a divine Son 
only. If that had been the fact, why did not 
Christ so say ? Why did he not say, " What 
and if ye shall see the Son of God ascend," &c. ? 
That expression could include both natures ; for 
the union of the divine Son with the man Jesus 
would make the divine Son and the human 
Jesus one : in that case, if Christ had said, " If 
ye shall see the Son of God ascend up where 
he was before," it would have been proper ; for 
the soul and body, being united with the divine 
Son, must have ascended with him. But Christ 
did not so speak. His words are, " If ye shall 
see the Son of man ascend up where he was 
before!' Mark, " Where the Son of man was 
before" As this name always included his hu- 
manity when applied to himself, does it not es- 
tablish the point beyond question that his hu- 
manity was in heaven before he was manifested 
on earth ? 

Let it be remembered that Christ's question at 
this time was in answer to the murmurings of the 
disciples, who had said, " This is a hard saying : 
who can hear it ? " " Does this offend you ? " says 
Christ. " What will you say if you see me as- 
cend up where I was before I came upon earth ? " 
This seems to be the simple purport of the text : 



SONSHIP OF CHRIST. 51 

but Christ fixes it yet more definitely ; and, that 
there should be no mistake, he says, " the Son of 
man" Did not Christ intend to convey to the 
disciples that it was this Son of man who should 
ascend, as really as he intended to convey to them 
that it was this Son of man who should be be- 
trayed and crucified, when he informed them of 
his arrest and execution ? 

So also in John xvi. 28, "I came forth from the 
Father, and am come into the world ; again, I 
leave the world and go to the Father." Did not 
the disciples understand him to mean himself, as 
man, as he stood before them, when they an- 
swered (verse 29), " Lo, now speakest thou plain- 
ly, and speakest no proverb ; " " By this we be- 
lieve that thou earnest forth from God " ? 

Did the disciples imagine there was a divine 
Son of God united with the man Jesus Christ, 
and that this divine Son was the being who came 
forth from God, and was to return to God ? Did 
Christ intend they should so understand him ? 
Jesus adds (verse 32), " Ye shall be scattered, 
every man to his own, and shall leave me alone : 
and yet I am not alone, because the Father [not 
divine Son] is with me." Do not the pronouns 
" me " and " I," in the above, refer exclusively to 
the man ? 

In John vi. 30, Jesus says, " I came down from 
heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of 



52 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

him that sent me." Take this in connection 
with chap. v. 30, which reads thus : " As I hear, 
I judge: and my judgment is just; because I 
seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father 
which hath sent me." As before remarked, these 
verses show that there were two wills in heaven, 
the Father's and the Son's ; for he says, " I came 
down from heaven not to do mine own will? 

Certainly, then, the Son had a will in heaven 
before he came to earth ; and that will, although 
in harmony with, was not, the Father's will : for 
he came down to do, not the one, but the other. 

Now, if this " I " and " my " and " mine " refer 
to a divine Son, this Son must have had a will 
separate from his Father's. And if possessing a 
separate will, it follows he must have been a sepa- 
rate being ; for a divine Son, inherently of the 
same essence with his Father, could not have a 
separate will. Therefore the Son who came down 
from heaven exclusively to do his Father's will 
could not have been a divine Son. 

We must keep in view it was Jesus Christ who 
" came down from heaven," for he says, "/ came 
down from heaven." Clearly, then, it must have 
been that Son who could " do nothing of himself 
but what he seeth the Father do " (John v. 19). 

What part of the complex Christ was it which 
came down from heaven ? His body had not yet 
been in heaven. Most assuredly, then, it must 



SONSHIP OF CHRIST. 53 

have been the human soul of Jesus. We have 
heard of but one way of treating these verses in 
John when supposed to apply to an eternal divine 
Son ; and that is the assertion, "The subject is 
a mystery ! " 

The mystery to us is, how a thoughtful mind 
can be satisfied with such a statement, when the 
truth is so simple and clear. We know " secret 
things belong to the Lord our God : " we also 
know that those " things which are revealed be- 
long to us and our children " (Deut. xxix. 29). 

If any doctrines of Christ are clearly revealed 
in the New Testament, we think that the exist- 
ence of the human soul of Christ with his Father 
in heaven, before the creation, is one of them. 

One would suppose the Saviour foresaw that 
an error would find its way into the Church, 
and mystify his glorious character, and that he 
was on his guard against the use of any words 
from which the idea of an eternal divine Son 
could be drawn ; for he constantly employs lan- 
guage inconsistent with such a doctrine. 

How often he repeats such expressions as, " I 
came from the Father," " came not of myself," 
" was sent," " was given," &c. ! If we mistake not, 
there are between thirty and forty instances in 
the Evangelists, where Christ alludes to himself, 
or is spoken" of, as having been " sent ; " and in 
every one the idea that his Father sent him is 
implied or expressed. 



54 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

Now, all these irresistibly convey to the mind 
the idea of two beings, the one having superiority 
over the other. The mind as naturally embraces 
this view as the lungs inhale the atmosphere. 
How unnatural the idea that one person of the 
Godhead should send another person of the God- 
head ! These persons being, as is asserted, inhe- 
rently " of the same essence, and equal in every 
divine perfection," there could of course be but 
one will : yet one sends the other ! How could 
such a divine Son say, " I came not of myself" — 
unless, as none would admit, there could be two 
wills in Deity ? 

Would it not be just as proper to say that the 
Son sent the Father, who certainly was on earth ? 
— and, indeed, more proper, since Christ perpet- 
ually recognized the Father as dwelling in him 
and doing the works, but never mentions an 
eternal Son. If there were such a Son, must he 
not have remained in heaven ? We hear nothing 
of him on earth. 

True, Peter says to Jesus, " Thou art the Christ, 
the Son of the living God." Jesus himself, on his 
oath before the Sanhedrim, admits the same. It 
is asserted that the term Christ implies an eter- 
nal Son in these declarations. But whence the 
authority for this ? That he was a " begotten " 
Son is abundantly attested. Could he be both a 
begotten and unbegotten Son ? 



SONSHIP OF CHRIST. 55 

Again : we assume that when Christ prayed, he 
prayed only as a man, a dependent human being. 
Although he was God by virtue of his peculiar 
union with the Father, yet his humanity was as 
dependent on the Father as if there had been no 
such connection ; as he says, " The Son can do 
nothing of himself." Of course, then, in his pray- 
ers at least, the pronouns "I" and "me" can refer 
only to his humanity. 

Let us now turn to his memorable prayer re- 
corded in the seventeenth chapter of John. In 
the first verse he prays, " Father, glorify thy Son, 
that thy Son may also glorify thee." Keeping in 
view that he prays as a man, and that the man 
praying is the Son, does he, we ask, pray that an 
alleged eternal Son may be glorified ? Is it not, 
rather, that the human Son now praying may be 
glorified in the death, resurrection, and ascension 
which were just before him ? Can it be difficult 
to determine these questions ? 

Also, take the fourth and fifth verses, where, 
after saying, " I have glorified thee on the earth," 
&c, implying that his whole aim, in his labors 
for the good of men, had been to exalt and glo- 
rify his Father, and that now it only remained to 
suffer, rise from the dead, and give the last in- 
structions to his disciples, he introduces this re- 
markable petition : " And now, O Father, glorify 
thou me with thine own self, with the glory which 



56 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

I had with thee before the world was." This 
petition, though short, is very comprehensive. It 
shows, first, that the man now praying had been 
with his Father before the creation of the world ; 
secondly, that it was a state of glory in which he 
had been with his Father ; thirdly, that he had 
for a time been divested of much of that glory, 
having been engaged in completing a work which 
the Father had given him to do ; and, fourthly, 
that he now asks to be taken back into that glo- 
rious state which he enjoyed with the Father 
before his descent to earth. 

What is there more in the whole scheme of re- 
demption ? We have Christ coming from heaven, 
taking a human body, performing works of mercy 
as one of the human family, in that state fulfilling 
the divine law to its penalty, rising from under 
the same, proclaiming salvation to all who should 
believe on him, and then reascending to his native 
heaven : all this is directly or indirectly included 
in this short prayer. 

Such seems to be a natural unfolding of the 
thoughts this prayer contains ; and we see not 
how any one can discover in it the doctrine of an 
eternal divine Son, who, as is commonly taught, 
laid aside his glory in order to dwell in the body 
of Jesus. 

Now if the position is correct, that Christ prayed 
only as a human being, then the above-mentioned 



SONSHIP OF CHRIST. 57 

doctrine, which seems to divest the prayer of all 
its beauty and pathos, at once disappears. 

How strangely it sounds to say that the eternal 
God the Son prays to the eternal God the Father 
to be invested with the glory which he had with 
him before he came to earth ! But admit that the 
soul of the man praying had been in heaven, in a 
state of union and glory with the Father, before 
his appearance " in the form of a servant " on 
earth, and the prayer at once becomes intelligible, 
and harmonious with the teachings of Christ con- 
cerning himself 

See also the twenty-fourth verse, where Christ 
says, " For thou lovedst me before the foundation 
of the world." This passage, we are aware, may 
be explained in the same way as those which 
speak of believers as " chosen in Christ before the 
foundation of the world." 

But it is more simple and natural to connect it 
with the prayer in the fifth verse. We should 
like to linger on this prayer, and to comment on 
some of its other expressions ; but it is not neces- 
sary. It may be said of it as a whole, as was re- 
marked on verse 5, that, from beginning to end, 
it shows, as clearly as words can, an inferior being- 
addressing a superior ; a loving Father, on whom 
the suppliant is wholly dependent. If this is not 
the meaning, we frankly confess ourselves unable 
to understand it. 



58 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

Let the reader remember, that, in deciding this 
question whether it is an eternal Son who is pray- 
ing through the humanity of Jesus, or whether it 
is strictly the man Jesus himself who prays to his 
Father, we really decide the question as to the 
existence of an eternal Son ; for the being who 
offers this prayer is the one who was in glory with 
the Father before the world was. 

Now what being could this be other than the 
human soul of Christ ? 

But it may be said, " How could a created being 
be so united to the eternal God that the two 
should become one " ? We answer, as before, 
" We cannot tell." It will then be said, " Here, 
then, is a mystery." Most assuredly there is ; 
but is it a greater mystery that the man Jesus 
should be united to God his Father, than that the 
same man Jesus should, according to the general 
belief, be united to God an eternal Son ? 

But this is not our only answer. It was the 
work of God. We do not profess to explain or 
understand the manner of God's doings further 
than it is revealed. 

We have more than once alluded to the union 
of the human soul and body as an illustration of 
that celestial union ; and we cannot do better. 

We know, from our own consciousness, that 
the human soul and body are one ; and we know 
that the begotten Son and his Father are one, 



SONSHIP OF CHRIST. 59 

because Christ and the apostles have so declared. 
All men acknowledge the former case as a fact : 
so will we speak and act in the latter. 

Before leaving this point of Christ's being with 
his Father prior to the incarnation, we wish to 
call attention to one of the twenty appellations or 
descriptions which Christ applies to himself in 
his messages to the seven churches of Asia, con- 
tained in the second and third chapters of the 
Revelation. Each of these has something appli- 
cable to himself : many refer to his first appear- 
ance to John on the island. 

Read concerning his appearance, and the fur- 
ther narration in Rev. i. 14-18. It will be seen 
that the person spoken of is " he that liveth and 
was dead!' This clause seems to be thrown in 
that John should not mistake the person, that it 
was truly Jesus of Nazareth. John says of him in 
the thirteenth verse that " he was like unto the 
Son of man." No one doubts that this person 
was Jesus Christ, " who had all power given to 
him in heaven and in earth ; " and in these pres- 
entations and messages, he shows the disposition 
to be made of that power. 

In the last one of these descriptions, he calls 
himself " the beginning of the creation of God." 

We have endeavored to show under another 
head (see page 9) who this being was with whom 
God began his creation. His appearance to John 



60 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

at first, and all the descriptions and representa- 
tions that follow, go to establish the fact that it 
was Christ, as a man, who met and conversed with 
John ; and we believe that it was the man Jesus, 
and his angels, who mostly communicated with 
John on the island. 

If, then, it was the man Jesus whom John saw 
in such majesty, it must have been the same who 
was " the beginning of the creation of God ; " 
therefore it must have been as a man that he was 
with his Father before the creation of the world. 

We now think it has been fully shown that 
there were two wills in heaven before the creation, 
and if two wills, there must have been two beings ; 
and that one of these beings could be no other 
than that human soul of Christ that came down 
and dwelt with men, as one of the human family. 

Advancing now to another point of this subject, 
we hope to show to the satisfaction of every can- 
did mind, that the divinity of tJie Lord yesus 
Christ consists in the union of his humanity with 
the eternal God his Father, and not, as is generally 
held, with an eternal divine Son. 

We begin by renewing the assertion, that, in 
all Christ's teachings as to his divine nature, there 
is not the first instance of so much as an allusion 
to a connection with a divine Son, nor even the 
most distant hint of the existence of such a Son. 



SONSHIP OF CHRIST. 6l 

We would call attention to this fact as a strong 
inferential evidence of his non-existence. 

On the contrary, whenever he refers to his di- 
vine nature and power, he invariably attributes 
all to his Father alone. The passages are too nu- 
merous to quote, the Evangelists, especially John, 
abounding in them. We select a few of the more 
prominent, some of which have already been intro- 
duced. John xiv. 7 : "If ye had known me, ye 
should have known my Father also : and from 
henceforth ye know him, and have seen him." 

How had the disciples seen the Father ? Jesus 
tells us •: " The works that I do in my Father's 
name, they bear witness of me." He does not say 
" in the divine Son's name," which doubtless he 
would have said if he had been united to such a 
Son, and wrought by his power. 

The disciples had seen the Father in him, in 
the divine works which he did, just as John had 
" heard, seen, and handled the word of life ; " and 
just as we should say of a neighbor, " I saw Mr. 
A.," when we had seen only the body : the soul, 
the real man, we had not seen. In the same sense 
Jesus says, " He that seeth me seeth him that sent 
me " (John xii. 45), and he tells us many times 
. who it was that sent him. 

In answer to the request of Philip, to show 
them the Father, he expresses surprise, that, af- 
ter all they had seen of his divine works, and his 



62 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

repeated assertions of his inability to do them of 
himself, and that he did them all by his Father, 
they should still be ignorant of his true character ; 
and he further assures them (chap. xiv. 9-1 1) that 
it was by his union with the Father that all his 
wonderful works were performed. 

But, as he was " in the Father and the Father 
in him," and " he and the Father were one " (that 
is, one by the union of the two), there belonged 
to him the nature and the powers of each ; and he 
could do the works of both the Father and the 
human Son. 

Accordingly he says (John x. 37), " If I do not 
the works of my Father, believe me not." He 
acknowledges that this claim to union with his 
Father is not entitled to be accepted on his bare 
statement, but needs to be proved by other evi- 
dence ; therefore he says, " The works that I do 
in my Father's name, they bear witness of me." 

Other teachings of his had their evidence large- 
ly in themselves ; but this claim of a special union 
with the Father needed the further evidence of 
his divine works. 

Thus we have in Jesus Christ the God-man, or 
" God with us," in the clearest possible sense. In 
this way alone does he assert for himself divine 
power and authority, attributing all to his Father, 
the one supreme God. 

Where, then, again we ask, is there the slightest 



SONSHIP OF CHRIST. 63 

ground for imagining an eternal Son between God 
the Father and the man Jesus thus conversing 
with the disciples ? Had there been such a Son, 
must he not have known it ? And, if he knew it, 
would he not have made some allusion to it, that 
the Church might not have been left for ages to 
conjectures on the subject ? He came to instruct 
in the things of the kingdom of heaven, as well as 
to save the souls of men. 

If, therefore, the doctrine of an eternal Son of 
God, held to be so fundamental in the economy 
of salvation, be true, we feel that it detracts from 
the character of the blessed Saviour, that, in all 
his teachings in the course of his ministry, he 
should not give so much as one hint of it to his 
disciples. 

Let us now look, for a moment, at the Scrip- 
tures thus far employed in our argument, with 
perhaps a few others, by way, mainly, of recapitu- 
lation. 

The following, we believe, are generally ad- 
mitted to refer to Jesus Christ : he was " the be- 
ginning of the creation of God ; " " he was before 
all things ; " he was " in the beginning ; " he " was 
possessed of Jehovah in the beginning of his 
way ; " he " was set up from everlasting, from the 
beginning, or ever the earth was." 

He was united with God in the creation of the 



64 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

world : for " God created the heavens and the 
earth ; " and " the Son made all things, visible 
and invisible ; " and " by him God made the 
worlds." He was with God in the creation of 
man. He left heaven, and came to earth ; for 
" he came forth from the Father, and came into 
the world." He was seiit into the world by his 
Father. He was sent to do a certain work. 

While performing his works on earth, he speaks 
to his disciples of his "ascending up where he 
was before." He says he " knows Him who sent 
him, for he was from him." 

Having established the fact of his union with 
his Father, he then prays to be reinstated in the 
exalted condition which he necessarily laid aside 
to dwell with men on the earth. And, having 
fulfilled in the flesh all the divine requirements, 
in spirit, word, and deed, he then, on the cross, 
makes his last public proclamation, which was to 
all the world, " It is finished." 

We have thus far examined the Scriptures 
mainly relied on to prove the existence of an 
eternal Son of God, and called attention to their 
simple, literal import. We think we may chal- 
lenge any one to say if we have sought to pervert 
them, or draw from a single passage an unwar- 
ranted meaning. 

We have also endeavored to show, from the 



SONSHIP OF CHRIST. 65 

Saviour's own teachings, in what his divine nature 
and power to work miracles consisted. 

It may be said that we set aside the funda- 
mental doctrine of the divinity of the Son of 
God, and reduce him to a mere man. Confess- 
edly, we do regard the Son of God as man ; but 
we recognize him also, in the highest sense, as 
God, by such a union with God as that he and 
his Father are One. 

We have endeavored to be explicit on this 
point, believing the doctrine of the union of di- 
vinity and humanity to lie at the basis of salva- 
tion through the atonement of Christ ; for, with- 
out such union of God with man, we think there 
could be no atonement. 

Do we make the Son of man less divine by be- 
lieving his own words, that his divinity is of his 
Father, than we should by believing the words of 
men, who say it consisted in a union with a di- 
vine Son ? 

He tells us his divinity is of the Father : men 
tell us it is of a divine Son. 

We believe we have shown that the Lord Jesus 
Christ is as truly divine as he is human ; that he 
possessed three natures : first, that of God the 
Father, the divine nature ; second the human 
soul, the human immortal nature ; third, the 
body, the material nature — these three united in 
one. The natural eye could see only one ; but 
5 



66 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

the other two were really the acting power to per- 
form the work through the body. 

It is said, again, that these views differ little 
from those of the old Arians. 

We admit that there is a point of resemblance 
between the position here taken and that of the 
Arians, viz., the impossibility of a Father and a 
Son existing co-eternally. 

Arianism, it is well known, took its rise from 
the address of Bishop Alexander to his presbyters 
and lesser clergy, wherein he asserts that the Son 
is co-eternal, co-equal, and co-essential with the 
Father. 

To this statement Arius took exception, saying 
that there could not be a Father and a Son of 
co-eval existence. Alexander strenuously main- 
tained his position, which had long been the gen- 
eral doctrine of the Church ; and most of the 
bishops and presbyters went with him. Arius as 
firmly kept his ground, that it is impossible for 
the Son to be co-eternal with his Father. Thus 
the division in the Church commenced. Each 
party had its adherents. 

So far as we have been able to learn, Arius, 
before this controversy arose, stood as well in the 
Church for piety and zeal as others of his order. 
At first he did not deny the divinity of the Son, 
but acknowledged him as the second person in 
the Godhead. But the Arians soon saw that they 



SONSHIP OF CHRIST. 6j 

must either give up the doctrine of the Son's di- 
vinity, or admit his co-eternity with the Father ; 
for if he was not thus co-eternal, he could not be 
inherently divine : and they chose to surrender 
the idea of his divinity. 

As, however, the evidence that he existed be- 
fore the creation of the world, and took part in 
that creation, was too strong to be denied, they 
called him the first and highest of all created 
beings. 

To trace the subsequent history of Arianism, 
with its various parties and gross errors, till it 
became virtually extinct, is foreign to our pur- 
pose. 

Alexander's party, which was the Trinitarian, 
saw an inexplicable difficulty in their doctrine of 
a trinity in the Godhead. The divinity of the 
Son was too clearly taught in the Bible for them 
to think of relinquishing that. On this also rested 
their hopes of salvation. 

But to call the Son divine when he was not 
God in the highest sense, was to them a contra- 
diction ; and if he was God in this sense, he must, 
they thought, have existed from eternity. How 
a Father and a Son could be each from eternity, 
they could not explain ; and consequently, as it 
was a matter relating to the Divine existence, 
they took refuge in the conclusion that it was an 
inexplicable mystery. 



68 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

In most of the various councils subsequently 
called, this subject was discussed, and often at 
much length, until finally it was settled accord- 
ing to the Athanasian Creed,' which teaches that 
the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy 
Ghost is God, and yet the three Persons are but 
one God. 

How the personal Father, the personal Son, 
and the personal Holy Ghost could exist as one 
God, was left a mystery. It became, however, 
the doctrine of the Church, and has so continued 
down to the present day. Hundreds of Biblical 
students have written on this doctrine ; but no 
one has explained it. 

The exact date of its introduction into the 
Church we have been unable to learn. Probably 
it was brought forward in the third, or latter part 
of the second century, when almost all sorts of 
speculations were rampant in the Church. Gue- 
ricke's concise account of those times shows that 
almost every school, and many bishops, agitated 
the community with some new doctrines or sys- 
tems. We hear Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea 
early in the fourth century, say that "he was 
early taught it while a catechumen, and also by 
his predecessors." Is not this a tacit confession 
that he did not receive it from the teachings of 
Christ or his apostles ? 

No doubt numberless disciples can say with 



SONSHIP OF CHRIST. 69 

Eusebius, that " they were early taught it ; " but 
can any believer in the doctrine say that it was 
taught him from the Holy Scriptures ? 

The difficulty with both Alexander and Arius, 
and their great error, appears to have been in 
supposing, in common with their predecessors, 
that the humanity of Christ, including soul and 
body, took its origin with the babe in Bethlehem. 
Not doubting that this was the fact, each framed 
his theory accordingly. 

Hence, the Arians, while exalting him as a 
creature, denied that he was God. The Trinita- 
rians, unable to give up the idea of his proper 
divinity, maintained that he was the Son of God 
from all eternity. Thus arose the doctrine of his 
eternal generation. 

Now, had the Church teachers of those times 
carefully studied the words of Jesus, and the 
writings of John and Paul, on this subject, in- 
stead of relying on their instructors and prede- 
cessors, we think they would have found, in the 
pre-existence of the human soul of Christ, an 
intermediate point of view, which would have 
saved them from these conflicting theories. 

The Trinitarian would have seen that the Son, 
begotten "before the world was," but not from 
eternity, could be truly God by union with his 
Father. 

The Arian, too, would have learned that it was 



70 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

possible for him to maintain that the Son is a 
created and derived being, without denying his 
proper divinity. 

So far as Arius asserts the strict unity of God, 
the impossibility of a Son being co-eternal with 
his Father, and his consequently derived exist- 
ence, it will be seen that our views agree. But 
when he denies that the Son is truly divine as 
God is divine, we must leave him, and " walk no 
more with him ; " for Christ says, " I and my Fa- 
ther are one." 

Also, when the Trinitarian affirms that the 
Son or Logos is God, and possesses all divine 
attributes, we join heart and hand with him. We 
differ only when he teaches that the Son was co- 
existent with the Father, by "eternal generation," 
and was inherently divine. John the Baptist 
says, " God giveth not the Spirit by measure 
unto him." 

The Trinity and the Holy Spirit. 

The views of the Son of God that have now 
been advanced, it will be seen, are in conflict 
with the doctrine of an eternal Trinity. If, as 
we have endeavored to show, there was no eter- 
nal Son, there could have been no " second per- 
son in the Godhead ; " and consequently no eter- 
nal Trinity. 



THE TRINITY AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 7 1 

It will be remembered our position (page 10) 
was that God existed as one Being up to the 
begetting of the Son, but not (so far as we know) 
as Father, for there was no Son. 

But there is a Trinity, adapted to our needs, 
of which the New Testament speaks, which we 
will now consider, together with the Personality 
of the Spirit. 

That there are three distinct personalities or 
agents in the economy of grace, the Scriptures 
clearly affirm, each having his appropriate sphere 
in man's salvation ; and these three are, most 
emphatically, one. The two distinct persons, 
Father and Son, have been already considered, 
and their unity : we come now to the personality 
of the Holy Spirit, called by Jesus "the Com- 
forter." 

At the Feast of Tabernacles in Jerusalem, 
Jesus made this declaration : " He that believeth 
on me, as the Scripture hath said, out of his belly 
shall flow rivers of living water." John adds, 
"But this spake he of the Spirit, which they 
that believe on him should receive ; for the Holy 
Ghost was not yet given, because that Jesus was 
not yet glorified" (John vii. 38, 39). This he said 
in accordance with Christ's words in his last ad- 
dress to the disciples, where he declared, " It is 
expedient for you that I go away : for if I go not 
away, the Comforter will not come unto you ; but 



72 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

if I depart, I will send him unto you " (John xvi. 
7). Here we have the testimony of Christ and 
John, that, before Christ's ascension, the Com- 
forter or Holy Ghost had not come ; and each 
gives the same reason, viz., because Jesus had 
not ascended, or was not yet glorified. 

But, notwithstanding these declarations, we 
find, both in the Old Testament and the New, 
various works and manifestations attributed to 
the Holy Ghost which occurred before Christ 
entered upon his ministry. 

Even in the account of the creation it is said, 
" The Spirit of God moved upon the face of the 
waters." Again, " The Spirit of God came upon 
Balaam ; " also " upon Saul," and upon many 
others. In the New Testament in particular, 
various works in both the former and later times 
are ascribed to the " Holy Ghost." " David said 
by the Holy Ghost, The Lord said unto my 
Lord," &c. (Mark xii. 36). " Holy men spake as 
they were moved by the Holy Ghost " (2 Peter 
i. 21). The angel said to Mary, "The Holy 
Ghost shall come upon thee ; " and when she 
visited her cousin, and told her what the angel 
had announced, " Elizabeth was filled with the 
Holy Ghost." When John the Baptist was born, 
"his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy 
Ghost." "It was revealed to Simeon by the 
Holy Ghost that he should not see death until 



THE TRINITY AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 73 

he had seen the Lord's Christ" "The Holy 
Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove " 
upon Christ at his baptism. " And Jesus, being 
full of the Holy Ghost, returned into Galilee." 

These and other acts, as just observed, are 
ascribed to the divine Spirit before Christ and 
John taught that the Holy Spirit had not yet ' 
come. 

Now, what were all the acts of the Spirit? 
What else were they than God communicating 
(through the begotten Son) his will to men ? 
His usual way of making known his will was 
through the agency o f what is called his Spirit. 
There were, however, other ways. It is often 
said, " The Lord spake : " whether using the 
human voice or some other instrumentality is 
not material. 

As, however, the " worlds were made " through 
the begotten human Son, we cannot see why he 
should not speak words through him ; and it 
would seem that God did sometimes speak with 
a human voice. He "called unto Adam, and 
said, Where art thou ? " and, " Who told thee 
that thou wast naked ? " likewise to Noah, Abra- 
ham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, and others. We see 
no good reason to doubt that, in these cases, a 
human voice was used ; and, indeed, we are told 
that on one occasion God did use a voice. Ex. 
xix. 19 : " Moses spake ; and God answered him 



74 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

by a voice." There were also divine messages 
through angels, through dreams, signs, visions, 
impressions, &c. Can any one discover a third 
person in the Godhead in these means of divine 
communication ? 

Were not these simply the movements or ac- 
tions of that complex Being who created the 
heavens and the earth ? Is there any more need 
of recognizing a third person in these ancient 
acts of God than in his acts in the creation ? 

God, by and through his begotten Son, spake, 
and it was done. What person more was needed ? 

" But," says one, " a third person seems dis- 
tinctly recognized in the declaration, ' The Spirit 
of God moved upon the face of the waters.' " 

Would not the same sense, we ask, have been 
conveyed if it had been written, " God moved 
upon the face of the waters " ? What else, in 
fact, was this but God's own movement ? It will 
be observed that this sentence, like the preceding, 
is general in its character. The narrative begins 
with general announcements. First, God created 
the heavens and the earth. Next, "The Spirit 
of God moved upon the face of the waters." But 
no act of creation is yet defined ; there is simply 
the general description of movement. The nar- 
rator then proceeds to describe the different acts. 
No one, it is presumed, will say this movement 
was not God's act. 



THE TRINITY AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 75 

Now, let us see what was specifically done by 
this general movement. "And God said, Let 
there be light, and there was light." Where is 
the third person in this act ? And yet this 
comes under that general movement in which 
many think they see a third person. Again, 
41 God said, Let there be a firmament in the 
midst of the waters," &c. ; and God made the 
firmament, and divided the waters, &c. ; " and it 
was so." Is it not difficult to discover a third 
person an this ? Yet this is another act of the 
general movement. 

Thus we might continue as regards all the 
movements of God in the creation, and indeed 
in respect to all the divine movements down to 
the Pentecostal advent. We can find just as 
much, and no more, of a third person in them 
than we can in the acts of the creation. 

But suppose there were such a personage in 
Deity from eternity, of what possible benefit 
could it be to the human family ? What advan- 
tage would it be to believe that God performed a 
part of his works through an indescribable third 
person ? 

Certainly all his works were not done through 
that agency, for Paul repeatedly assures us he 
created the world by his Son ; and unquestion- 
ably all the divine works that were wrought on 
earth while Christ was in the flesh were per- 



y6 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

formed through the Son. Where, then, is the 
evidence, or ground for supposition, even, that 
from the Creation to the Incarnation all God's 
works were not performed on this same prin- 
ciple ? 

Is it not more simple, intelligible, and attract- 
ing to consider God as performing all his works 
(of which we have any knowledge) in one and the 
same manner in which he performed a part of 
them, viz., by and through his well-beloved, first- 
begotten Son, even our Elder Brother ? How 
near it brings God to us (or, rather, how near it 
brings us to Him), to contemplate the eternal 
Deity as working by our Brother-man ! 

In this plan of God's operation, is it too much 
to think we see, in our own constitution, an anal- 
ogy or emblem of this method of divine working ? 
As the soul of man, as before observed, makes all 
its manifestations through the body with which it 
is united, so God acts through his human Son, 
united to him. 

Again, where is the necessity for a third per- 
son ? We have the Eternal God in union with 
this only-begotten Son, who has ever been, and 
still is, accessible to each of the human race — all- 
powerful, able to speak even a world into exist- 
ence, forming a complete " way " of sympathizing 
communication "with man, capable of imparting 
instruction in any form or manner that the case 



THE TRINITY AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. J7 

may require. What greater provision could we 
ask, or even conceive of, from our Heavenly Fa- 
ther ? 

Again, consider the inconsistency of distin- 
guishing a third person in the passage under con- 
sideration. The account states that He " moved 
upon the face of the waters." And this is all that 
is said concerning him (if our memory serves us), 
for nearly sixteen hundred years ; no allusion to 
him throughout the description of the creation ; 
nothing in all God's subsequent dealings with 
men, that can reasonably be attributed to a third 
person, until the days of Noah, when God said, 
" My Spirit shall not always strive with man." 
And would not the same idea have been con- 
veyed had he said, " I will not always strive with 
man/' or " My influence shall not," &c. ? 

If we can discover a third person in this say- 
ing to Noah, why not likewise in the words of 
Job, David, and others who make use of similar 
language ? If it was a third person that moved 
upon the waters, where had he been, and what 
had he been doing in those sixteen hundred 
years ? 

Let us look at some of the passages which are 
thought to teach an eternal third person in the 
Godhead. " The Spirit of God moved " (Gen. i. 
2) ; " Man in whom the Spirit of God is " (Gen. 
xli. 38) ; " Filled with the Spirit of God " (Ex. 



yS BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

xxxi. 3) ; " The Spirit of God was upon him " 
(1 Sam. xix. 23) ; "The Spirit of God made me" 
(Job xxiii. 4) ; and many other like passages. 

Now, what do these expressions signify other 
than God acting, God moving, or the influence 
of God on men ? " God is a Spirit ; " if there- 
fore he acts at all, he must act as a Spirit ; unless 
he should assume material form, which with his 
Son he did do on certain occasions. 

Where is the propriety of inferring a third 
person from the expression, " The Spirit of God 
moved," more than, in other cases, to say the 
spirit of man moved ? In the latter case, is not 
the act always and properly ascribed to the actor 
himself? Why not equally so in the former ? 

It is commonly held that the Trinity was fully 
demonstrated at Christ's baptism. The Father 
spake from heaven ; the Son, now incarnate, was 
present ; and the Spirit, " the third person," de- 
scended in the form of a dove, and abode upon 
him. And this occurring before the noted day 
of Pentecost, " it proves," says one, " that the 
Trinity existed before that day." 

No doubt it does seem satisfactory proof to 
such a one, in the same way as the first verses 
in John's Gospel " prove " to commentators the 
eternity of the Son. When the mind is once 
fixed on certain views as being Christian doc- 
trine, it can find what seems abundant proof of 



THE TRINITY AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 79 

the same in the Bible. The greatest care should 
be taken lest our minds be influenced by precon- 
ceptions, and that we ever be resolved to seek 
only the mind of Christ. 

A different view may be drawn from the cir- 
cumstances at the baptism, that may seem, in 
the minds of some, to come nearer the facts in 
the case. A change was now to be made in the 
visible methods of divine communication. All 
the various ways heretofore employed were about 
to cease, and their place to be filled by this visi- 
ble Son. 

Two highly important matters were to be pre- 
sented : first, and undoubtedly the greatest, to 
announce to John, and through him to the world, 
that this man whom he had just baptized was the 
Son of God ; and that consequently he was the 
long-looked-for Messiah. John evidently appre- 
hended the object of this wonderful manifesta- 
tion * John the Evangelist also understood it, 
as appears in his first Epistle, as we shall see 
hereafter. 

The second object was to call the attention of 
the people away from all previous means of divine 

* If we turn to John i. 32-34, we shall see the object of 
the dove's descent. John was the first and the only man 
who introduced Jesus to the world as the Lamb of God, 
and also as the Son of God. We there see John's authority 
for so doing. 



80 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

communication, and point them to this Son, inas- 
much as he, during his ministry, was to be their 
only divine Teacher. To establish these things 
beyond question, the full requirement of the Jew- 
ish law as to witnesses, even in capital cases, was 
met, and a triple testimony was furnished. It 
will be remembered that Christ was accustomed 
to call three witnesses to many of his important 
acts. Surely this was an occasion of the greatest 
magnitude, when all those outward means former- 
ly used in conveying the divine will were to be 
changed, and transferred to this man Jesus, who 
stood before them. 

Again, was it not as easy for this Being to as- 
sume the form of a dove, or to speak from heaven, 
or perform any other act in heralding this heaven 
and earth born One, as to cure the leper, or call 
the dead to life ? 

It must not be forgotten that this was that 
same united complex Being who, more than four 
thousand years before, said, " Let there be light," 
and there was light. Why make Him a third 
person because assuming the form of a dove for 
a specific purpose, any more than because of his 
assuming the human form, as he did before 
Joshua by the walls of Jericho ? — or with Jacob 
when he wrestled with him till break of day ? 
Let us not "judge according to appearance," or 
predilection, " but judge righteous judgment." 



THE TRINITY AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 51 

If the words of Peter, " Holy men spake as they 
were moved by the Holy Ghost," are brought as 
an objection to our position, on the ground that 
they imply the existence of the Spirit as a person 
in the days of the prophets, the answer is, that 
Peter might quite properly write thus some thirty 
years after the divine influence had been personi- 
fied by the authority of Christ, as the Comforter 
or Holy Ghost. 

But why spend time in showing there was no 
personal Holy Ghost prior to his advent on the 
day of Pentecost ? We have Christ's positive 
words, as before quoted, that if he went not away 
the Comforter would not come. " If I go not 
away the Comforter will not come unto you ; " 
plainly showing that he had not then come. And 
he further says, " The Comforter, who is the Holy 
Ghost." John, also, referring to a declaration of 
Christ a few months previous to the above, 
affirms, " The Holy Ghost was not yet given, 
because Jesus was not yet glorified." Thus the 
unequivocal declarations of Christ and John stand 
together, that the Comforter or Holy Ghost had 
not come previous to Christ's ascension. 

If any one should be. willing to confront this 
twofold testimony and declare the Holy Ghost 
had come, and was a third person in the God- 
head from eternity, we can only say, " Put off thy 
6 



82 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

shoes from off thy feet," for thou treadest on holy 
ground. 

We well know that efforts, which we hardly 
know how to characterize as other than sophis- 
tical, have been put forth to compel these wit- 
nesses to testify what they never did, nor ever 
intended to testify. But the inspired word, and 
that only, with what is conformed thereto, will 
stand until the visible heavens and earth shall 
pass away. 

When, however, Christ was baptized, and be- 
gan his public ministry, and the people were di- 
rected to him by the manifestation at the baptism, 
he now becomes not only the spiritual, as he al- 
ways had been, but also the only visible channel 
of divine communication. And why should he 
not be ? The spiritual days-man he had been 
ever since man was on earth. Now, furnished 
with a body, through its organs he can talk with 
men as men talk with one another ; and, being one 
with the Father, God through him communicates 
orally, familiarly, and in sympathy with man. 

Wonderful provision ! 

For a moment let us contemplate Christ talk- 
ing to and with men as another man ; and, being 
the complex person we have represented him, 
how naturally and appropriately such sentences 
as the following fall from his lips ! " My doc- 
trine is not mine, but his that sent me " (John 



THE TRINITY AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 83 

vii. 16). Here, we must see, Christ was speaking 
expressly as a man ; for the expressions " my" 
"mine" and "me" could not include a divine 
Son, for if they did, the doctrine must have been 
as really his as his Father's. 

But an entirely dependent human being, as 
Jesus frequently declared himself to be, could say 
so with propriety ; for he received his doctrine 
from his Father. He continues (v. 17), "If any 
man will do his will, he shall know of the doc- 
trine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of 
myself." 

What this doctrine was, he tells us in John vi. 
40 : " Every one that seeth the Son, and believeth 
on him, may have everlasting life." This is the 
doctrine he ever preached, until he was nailed to 
the cross. 

We might thus continue, and fill a small vol- 
ume in showing that Christ as a man, during the 
three and a half years of his ministry, was the 
sole organ of divine communication between God 
and the human family. The Spirit and the power 
were given to the apostles only through the man 
Jesus. 

Thus the writer to the Hebrews says (i. 1, 2), 
" God, who at sundry times and in divers man- 
ners spake in time past unto the fathers by the 
prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us 
by his Son." Remember what has been said, that 



84 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

in all his dealings with man, God spoke and acted 
solely through his Son ; these verses further show- 
that the visible person of the Son took the place 
of all the previous outward means of the divine 
communication. 

But this earthly relation of Christ to men could 
be but temporary. He came into the world to 
be more than a mere teacher. He was to do the 
will of God in the flesh, obeying not only all the 
ritual and moral precepts, but fulfilling also the 
divine mandate in relation to his brother man on 
earth, whom he saw lost in sin, and under sen- 
tence of both temporal and spiritual death. Man 
had disinherited himself of eternal life, and con- 
sequently had been forbidden access to its em- 
blem, the tree of life. Cast out of Paradise, it 
had become his doom, after a few years of anxiety 
and toil, to take up his abode with him whose sug- 
gestions he had adopted, instead of obeying his 
Maker's commands. 

The Son saw all this, and gave himself to the 
appointed work of providing redemption for his 
lost brother and his descendants. He met fully 
the demands of the law, which he voluntarily 
took upon himself by becoming the Son of man ; 
bore, both in soul and body, the heavy burden of 
man's sin and condemnation ; and then his soul, 
united with a glorified body, re-ascended to his na- 
tive heaven. And now in his absence who shall 
be the agent of divine communication ? 



THE TRINITY AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 85 

Before Christ's baptism there were, as we have 
seen, many visible ways of conveying the Divine 
will. During his ministry he was the only chan- 
nel, or, to use his own words, " the way." But, 
now that he has returned into heaven, who is to 
bring us the knowledge of divine things ? 

In answering this question, we give our under- 
standing of the personality of the Spirit, or the 
third person in the Christian Trinity. We draw 
our views chiefly from the address of Christ to the 
apostles at the last passover (John xiv. - xvi.). 

In this address, spoken after the institution of 
the Supper, he seeks to prepare them for the dark 
and discouraging scene which, unconsciously to 
them, was just before them, when all their hopes 
and expectations were to be apparently over- 
thrown. He explains to them his character as 
God and man, shows them what constituted his 
divinity, and by what power and authority he had 
performed his superhuman works, and tells them, 
that, though he is to leave them, he will yet ex- 
tend to them a watchful care through one whom 
he calls " the Comforter." 

While, however, the name is new, the acting 
and the power would be the same as heretofore ; 
namely, that of the Father in union with himself. 
By this agency was spiritual instruction to be 
given in all coming time. In order that they 
and all future disciples might have a more dis- 



86 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

tinct and palpable object before their minds 
than they could otherwise have, this divine spir- 
itual power he now personifies, — " The Com- 
forter." 

Heretofore, the name applied to this divine in- 
fluence had been " the Spirit of God " (Gen. i. 
2), " the good Spirit " (Neh. ix. 20), " Spirit of 
the prophets " (Neh. ix. 30), " the divine Spirit," 
" Thy Spirit," " Holy Ghost," &c, as before 
shown. All these expressions, and others of 
like import, could refer to but one influence ; 
and that was God acting or moving, without any 
authorized personality of those movements. 

But now, when Christ, through whom God 
since the baptism had acted visibly, was to be 
withdrawn, there needed to be prominently be- 
fore the minds of the disciples, in Christ's place, 
some other spiritual instructor, a distinct personal 
agent. Therefore he says, " I will pray the Fa- 
ther, and he shall give you another Comforter." 
Does he mean another being like himself ? — one 
who could go in and out with them, as he had 
done ? No ; but he personifies, in the use of this 
term, the new guiding power which they were to 
receive. With the apostles the wish would natu- 
rally arise, to learn something more about this 
promised Helper ; and, that Christ might not 
leave them in anxious doubt, he says, " I will 
come unto you," teaching them that in the Com- 



THE TRINITY AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 87 

forter he somehow includes himself. Throughout 
this address, he impresses upon them the idea, 
that henceforward the Comforter alone is to give 
instruction in heavenly things. 

To impress this more indelibly upon their 
minds and the minds of all future disciples, he 
condescended to have this personified agent pre- 
sented to their physical senses. Therefore the 
Comforter was first manifested as a " rushing 
mighty windy Mark how this is worded. Acts 
ii. 23 : " Suddenly there came a sound from 
heaven, as of a rushing mighty wind ; and it 
filled all the house where they were sitting." 
Their ears were therefore saluted by the ap- 
proach of this divine agent in his new, person- 
ified character. He was next manifested to an- 
other of their senses : "There appeared unto them 
cloven tongues like as of fire ; and it sat upon 
each of them." " They were all filled with the 
Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other 
tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance." 

Here we have three distinct witnesses to the 
advent of this new Agent ; the hearing, the sight, 
and the new power. And as we had a triple 
testimony when Jesus was introduced as the 
sole Agent of divine communication to man, so 
we have a similar testimony in these witnesses 
on the introduction of this new agency into his 
dispensation. 



88 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

It must still be remembered that the divine 
power or influence is now just the same as it 
was in the creation, and in every age after. The 
change is only in the dispensation or manner of 
communication ; that is, from the visible Jesus to 
this invisible Agent, the Comforter. 

Now, in this Comforter we find a third person, 
which constitutes a Trinity in the Christian dis- 
pensation. 

It may be asked, Why recognize a person in this 
divine influence now, and not prior to this event, 
when it is claimed to be the same influence as it 
always had been both in and since the creation ? 
The answer is, Because Jesus personified it by 
giving it a new name, the which implies a per- 
son ; and by calling him another Comforter ; 
showing that this Agent was to succeed him as 
the only divine Teacher. Also he ever after 
applies to him the masculine personal pronouns 
" he " and " him," which we think was never 
done before. We cannot conceive why Jesus 
should call him another, if he had always been a 
person. 

We should not, now, dare to personify him, did 
we not feel authorized by Christ's words. -Up to 
the period of his declarations on this point we 
find no authority for designating this united in- 
fluence of Father and Son as a person. Men 
have personified it and made it an eternal third 



THE TRINITY AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. * 89 

person in the Godhead, but we cannot find their 
authority. 

We shall say more on this point after we have 
listened to what Christ tells us of this Comforter. 

That there might be no misunderstanding as to 
the " Comforter " whom he now introduces to his 
disciples, he gives them a full and complete ex- 
planation of his person, character, office, and 
works, set forth in the memorable address to 
which we have alluded. It is important that due 
attention be given to these instructions, as they 
are the only information of the kind that we have 
of this personage, except what may be gathered 
from his works. And, as these instructions are 
in detached paragraphs in the above address, they 
may be better understood if viewed connectedly, 
as follows : — 

John xiv. 16 : "I will pray the Father, and he 
shall give you another Comforter, that he may 
abide with you forever." 

Verse 17:" Even the Spirit of truth, whom the 
world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, 
neither knoweth him : but ye know him ; for he 
dwelleth with you, and shall be in you." 

Verse 18 : "I will not leave you comfortless : I 
will come to you." 

Verse 23 : " If a man love me, he will keep my 
words : and my Father will love him, and we will 
come unto him, and make our abode with him!' 



90 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

Verse 25 : " These things have I spoken unto 
you, being yet present with you." 

Verse 26 : " But the Comforter, which is the 
Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my 
name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all 
things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have 
said unto you." 

Chap. xv. 26 : " But when the Comforter is 
come, whom / will send unto yotc from the Fa- 
ther, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth 
from the Father, he shall testify of me." 

Chap. xvi. 7 : " I tell you the truth : it is expe- 
dient for you that I go away ; for if I go not away, 
the Comforter will not come unto you ; but if I 
depart, / will send him unto you." 

Verse 8 : " And when he is come, he will re- 
prove [or convince] the world of sin, and of right- 
eousness, and of judgment." 

Verse 9 : "Of sin, because they believe not 
on me." 

Verse 10 : " Of righteousness, because I go to 
my Father, and ye see me no more." 

Verse 11 : "Of judgment, because the prince 
of this world is judged." 

Verse 12: "I have many things to say unto you ; 
but ye cannot bear them now." 

Verse 13 : " Howbeit, when he, the Spirit . of 
truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth : 
for he shall not speak of himself ; but whatsoever 



THE TRINITY AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 9 1 

he shall hear, that shall he speak ; and he will 
show you things to come." 

Verse 14 : " He shall glorify me : for he shall 
receive of mine, and shall show it unto you." 

Verse 15:" All things that the Father hath are 
mine : therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, 
and shall show it unto you." 

This, in a condensed and consecutive form, is 
Christ's description of the Comforter. Now let us 
analyze it, and see what it contains. 

1. He should come in answer to Christ's prayer. 
" I will pray the Father ; " John xiv. 16. 

2. He should be given by the Father. " And 
He shall give you another Comforter ; " ib. 

3. He should abide with the disciples forever. 
" That he may abide with you forever ; " ib. 

4. He is the Spirit of Truth. " Even the" Spirit 
of Truth ; " v. 17. 

5. He would not be seen by the world. " The 
world seeth him not ; " ib. 

6. The world would not know him. " Neither 
knoweth him ; " ib. 

7. He would be known by the disciples. " But 
ye know him ; " ib. 

8. He would dwell with them. " For he dwell- 
eth with you ; " ib. 

9. He would be in them. " And shall be in 
you ; " ib. 

10. In his coming Christ would come to them. 
" I will come to you ; " v. 18. 



92 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

1 1. In his coming the Father and the Son come 
to the disciples. " We will come and make our 
abode with him ; " v. 23. 

12. He is the Holy Ghost. "But the Com- 
forter, which is the Holy Ghost ; " v. 26. 

13. He is sent by the Father in Christ's name. 
" Whom the Father will send in my name ; " ib. 

14. He should teach the disciples all things. 
" He shall teach you all things ; " ib. 

15. He should bring to their remembrance his 
instructions. M And bring to your remembrance 
whatsoever I have said ; " ib. 

16. He should be sent from the Father by 
Christ. " Whom I will send from the Father ; " 
xv. 26. 

17. He should proceed from the Father. 
" Which proceedeth from the Father ; " ib. 

18. He should testify of Christ. "He shall 
testify of me ; " ib. 

19. He would not come unless Christ should 
depart. " If I go not away, the Comforter will 
not come unto you ; " xvi. 7. 

20. Christ would send him if he departed. " But 
if I depart I will send him unto you ; " ib. 

21. He should reprove the world of sin, of 
righteousness, and judgment. " He will reprove 
the world," &c. ; v. 8. 

22. He should guide into all truth. " He shall 
guide you into all truth ; " v. 1 3. 



THE TRINITY AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 93 

23. He should show things to come. " He will 
show you things to come ; " ib. 

24. He should show the things of the Father, 
for they are the things of Christ. " All things 
that the Father hath are mine, therefore said I 
that he shall take of mine and shall show it unto 
you;" v. 15. 

25. He should show the things of Christ. " He 
shall take of mine and show it unto you ; " ib. 

All this is what Christ tells us of the Com- 
forter. He must therefore possess all the attri- 
butes of the Deity ; for in his coming the Father 
comes. He must possess the nature, sympathies, 
and rational powers of man ; for in the Comfort- 
er's coming, Jesus says repeatedly he would come. 
Therefore, in the coming of the Comforter, there 
is really and comprehensively the coming of both 
the Father and the Son. The Comforter must, 
then, be both the Father and the Son acting 
jointly, or, in other words, that same complex 
Being who had performed all the divine works 
from the beginning. 

Thus, we see, the Father and the Son, jointly 
acting, constitute the Comforter ; i. e., the Father 
and Son jointly acting is by the authority of the 
Saviour personified, and thus constituted a per- 
son, called " another " because he was now and 
ever after to perform his works in this new situa- 
tion, in the place of all the former means and 



94 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

agents of divine communication, especially that 
of the visible Son during his ministry, whose 
visibility was now to cease. 

Further, this agent would be empowered to 
communicate what no former agency had done, 
or could do in their circumstances. His pre- 
rogative would be to teach the things of Christ ; 
that is, his character, and, more especially, the 
way of salvation through his death and resur- 
rection. 

Another reason, and not the least, for personi- 
fying this new agency was, that this Comforter 
would be in all after ages the principal, if not only, 
acting divine Teacher, as before stated. 

And now, what a Person is brought before us 
in this Comforter ! The God of the universe, the 
Eternal and the Almighty, in union with the be- 
gotten Son, under this new name, or under the 
name of the Holy Ghost or the divine Spirit (the 
particular name is immaterial), comes and makes 
his abode with men forever, expressly to teach 
them the things of his kingdom. 

How fitly is this new ministration of spiritual 
truth introduced ! — by a " sound from heaven 
as of a rushing, mighty wind," and by " cloven 
tongues as of fire." The Church now takes an 
advance such as she had never taken before. For 
more than four thousand years she had been 
creeping, in her infancy, through the mist of 



THE TRINITY AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 95 

figure, type, and emblem, until their fulfilment in 
the Messiah. 

During the ministry of John the Baptist, and 
even that of Christ, she was still comparatively 
in the dark as to the nature of Christ's kingdom. 

The disciples of that day, though believing him 
to be " the Christ of God," yet understood not his 
errand into the world. It remained for the Com- 
forter, the Holy Ghost, — that is, the Father and 
the Son moving or " coming " together, — to 
develop to the Church finally and fully the grand 
principles and doctrines of the gospel. All this 
was accomplished by the "descent of the Spirit on 
the day of Pentecost ; and how wonderfully was 
this done ! " It filled all the house where they 
were sitting ; " and the cloven fiery tongues " sat 
on each of them ; and they were all filled with the 
Holy Ghost." 

After this great manifestation, we no longer 
hear the apostles saying, " We trusted that it had 
been he which should have redeemed Israel ; " or, 
" Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the 
kingdom to Israel ? " 

It flashed upon them with convincing power, 
that the kingdom which Christ came to establish 
is " not of this world." Peter began at once to 
preach remission of sins through faith in the 
death and resurrection of Jesus. This was the 
first thorough gospel sermon ; and three thousand 



96 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

were converted and baptized before the setting 
of the sun. 

What a day for the Church ! We could almost 
say it was her birthday. Emerging from so long 
a period of darkness, mist, and twilight, there now 
opens on her the full radiance of a cloudless sun. 

True, the gospel had been preached to men 
ever since the first interview of Christ with his 
brother, man, in the garden, after the transgres- 
sion ; very dimly at first, but opening gradually 
with the ages. 

It made some progress under Moses, and far 
greater in the personal ministry of Christ. Al- 
though Jesus preached the gospel, yet it was that 
the kingdom of heaven was at hand. He did not 
and could not, under the circumstances, preach 
salvation through his own death and resurrection, 
unless he did it in prospect ; but now the mystery 
of redemption, hidden for ages, was made clear to 
the understanding by this spiritual Teacher. For 
after Christ's ascension there was still need of a 
personal teacher to whom the disciples might look 
for all necessary spiritual instruction ; and in this 
person, the promised Comforter, this need was 
fully met. 

Let the reader here pause a moment, and con- 
template this person, the Comforter, as he is set 
forth in the teachings of the Saviour : first, the 
Eternal God the Father ; secondly, his begotten 



THE TRINITY AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 97 

Son Jesus Christ ; and thirdly, their joint acting 
and influence, personified as Comforter, or by some 
equivalent name, and by the Saviour's authority 
constituted a person, hence being of necessity the 
third person of the Trinity in the economy of 
grace and salvation. Is it difficult to see that 
these three are one ? 

We drop our pen, and, contemplating this infi- 
nitely wise and sublime arrangement of mercy, 
our eyes moistening with gratitude, we exclaim 
with Paul, " Oh the depth of the riches both of 
the wisdom and knowledge of God ! How un- 
searchable are his judgments, and his ways past 
finding out ! For who hath known the mind of 
the Lord ? or who hath been his counsellor ? " 
(Rom. xi. 33, 34.) 

Who, indeed, but Deity, all-wise and all-merci- 
ful, could have devised a scheme so well adapted 
to glorify his exalted name, and at the same time 
so exactly suited to the wants of finite, fallen 
man ? 

Can any fail to see that this is just the Trinity 
introduced by John ? In his first Epistle, v. 7, he 
says, "There are three that bear record in heaven, 
— the Father, the Word [or Logos], and the 
Holy Ghost : and these three are one." He means, 
if we understand him, as if he said, " There are 
three in heaven that bear record ; " for surely he 
could not have intended to say that the three are 
7 



98 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

bearing record to the inmates of heaven : they 
need no such testimony : it was for men on earth 
that they were designed. The whole context sup- 
ports this idea. 

It may help to a clearer understanding of this 
passage, on which so much has been written, if 
we inquire, What is the testimony of these wit- 
nesses ? of what do they bear record ? What, we 
ask, can it be, but that which John is seeking to, 
establish in this whole Epistle, and especially in 
the context ; namely, that Jesus Christ is the Son 
of God, and that in him is eternal life ? 

To establish this doctrine more firmly, he calls 
in these witnesses, then in heaven, as having 
borne testimony to it at Christ's baptism, — a tes- 
timony which was addressed even to the outward 
senses of men. The Father in an audible voice 
says, " This is my beloved Son, in whom I am 
well pleased." The Son stands among them as a 
man, then beginning that ministry during which 
he endeavored to reveal himself as the Son of 
God, and that in him was eternal life. Then, in 
the presence of all, the Spirit alights upon him in 
" bodily shape as a dove." 

Here were the " three witnesses," all of them 
" in heaven " when John wrote, some sixty years 
after their testimonies were given. It is clear, 
too, that the three are one ; for Jesus says that 
he and his Father are one ; and we have seen 



THE TRINITY AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 99 

that the Spirit is their combined acting personi- 
fied, and therefore one with the Father and the 
Son. The testimony of the three we have also 
shown to be one. This testimony was given on 
earth ; and the record thereof was on earth when 
John wrote ; and it will remain to the end of 
time, bearing witness that Jesus Christ is the Son 
of God, and that in him is eternal life. 

Not, however, until the economy of redemption 
was fully laid open, was it needful, or even proper, 
that this divine agency should be specially des- 
ignated as a person ; for not until then could his 
new lesson of instruction be clearly and fully 
taught. How could the way of salvation through 
the death and resurrection of Christ be clearly 
taught and understood until these events had 
taken place ? 

Hence it was "expedient," not only for the 
apostles, but for all men, that he " should go 
away," in order that the Comforter might come ; 
and, lest the disciples should imagine Him to be 
some being hitherto to them unknown, he tells 
them that the promised Comforter " is the Holy 
Ghost." 

As if further to guard them against the idea of 
an imaginary mystical being, or some division 
of a being, he declares that the Comforter is the 
united agency of the Father and of himself ; say- 
ing, " We will come, and make our abode with you." 



IOO BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

We would here ask, How could the Father and 
Son come and make their abode with the disciples, 
but by their combined influence or movement ? 
And how do they come now but by the same in- 
fluence, which Christ calls the Comforter ? It 
would seem that not a word or expression is want- 
ing to make this matter clear as is consistent 
with the brevity of revelation. 

It has been questioned, whether the action of 
a being can be properly so personified as to justi- 
fy the application to it of the personal pronoun 
u ke; n but we think it should remove this doubt, 
when we consider that the Comforter was to be 
henceforth the prominent divine Teacher, and was 
clothed with such power as to be able to convert 
three thousand on the first day of his manifes- 
tation. 

This influence was also to continue and increase 
till the whole world should be renovated. The 
Comforter was to " convince the world of sin, of 
righteousness, and of judgment." The pronoun 
used fitly expresses this personal agency. 

Again : it is said that our view makes it im- 
proper to direct prayer to the Comforter ; for we 
cannot pray to a merely personified action. But 
there is a great difference between a merely per- 
sonified action, and that personified action in 
which are incorporated both the Father and Son. 
Can it be improper to pray to such an Agent ? — 



THE TRINITY AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. IOI 

to One in whose coming and influence they both 
come, as Christ said, " We will come? — we, in 
and through our joint working, will " abide with 
you forever." 

In our view, we cannot pray to any one of the 
three persons without praying to them all. If we 
pray to the Father, we pray to the Son and the 
Spirit. If we pray to the Son, we pray to the 
Father and the Spirit. If we pray to the Spirit, 
we pray to the Father and the Son. We may 
have either or all in our mind : it amounts to the 
same. 

Here the analogy of the human constitution is 
again applicable. We cannot approach a man's 
soul without approaching his body, nor his body 
without including his soul ; yet the two are dis- 
tinct. The soul is not the body, nor the body the 
soul ; but in their union they make one being. 
Apply this principle to prayer to the Father, the 
Son, or the Spirit, and all becomes clear. 

We find, however, the best emblem of the per- 
sonification of this united agency of the Father 
and the Son, in the words of Christ to the Jewish 
ruler ; and we desire ever to accept his infallible 
teachings. He compares it to the wind : " The 
wind bloweth where it listeth," &c. (John iii. 8). 
We all know that the wind is one of the most 
powerful agents in nature. But what is the wind ? 
Is it anything else than the action of the atmos- 



102 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

phere ? When there is no movement of the at- 
mosphere there is no wind ; and according to the 
velocity of the movement is the wind greater or 
less. Is not the atmosphere in the wind ? And, 
indeed, is not the wind the atmosphere ? But the 
wind, though perhaps the best analogy in nature, 
is necessarily imperfect, as nothing earthly can 
fully illustrate God or his movements. 

The wind, we know, is not a person ; but we 
speak of it almost as if it were ; that is, we seem 
to personify it when in common language we de- 
scribe its power in uprooting trees and demolish- 
ing buildings. Applying this now to the divine 
Spirit, or Comforter, we are aided to see how the 
movement of God, or God acting in Christ, is 
designated as a Person in carrying forward the 
work of man's salvation. 

When it is said, the Spirit of God did this or 
that, or God did it by his Spirit, God himself is 
the Spirit, and it is God moving. Separate God 
from the movement in any wise, and the divinity 
of the Comforter is destroyed ; for He is God 
moving. "We will come and make our abode 
with you;" Now, be it observed that the move- 
ment of God, or God moving, personified in the 
New Testament as the Comforter, is the very 
same not personified, as the God moving, or 
movement of God, styled the Spirit of God in 
the Old. 



THE TRINITY AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. IO3 

Thus we have in the Comforter, who is now 
" the Holy Ghost " personified, the third person in 
the Trinity of the New Testament. 

From these witnesses in heaven, let us pass to 
those mentioned in the eighth verse : "And there 
are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit and 
the water and the blood : and these three agree 
in one." The sixth verse may help us in obtain- 
ing information concerning these witnesses. 

It reads as follows : " This is he that came by 
water and blood, even Jesus Christ ; not by water 
only, but by water and blood ; and it is the Spirit 
that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth." 
Here we learn who this first witness in earth is, 
viz., the Comforter ; for Jesus, speaking of the 
Comforter, says, " When he, the Spirit of truth, 
shall come, he shall guide you into all truth " 
(John xvi. 13). 

The first, then, of the earthly witnesses is the 
Spirit of truth, or the Comforter. It will be re- 
membered that the Spirit, or the Holy Ghost, is 
the last-mentioned of the three witnesses in 
heaven, but the first of the earthly three. Why 
the last then, and the first now ? 

Because, when the three witnesses testified at 
Christ's baptism, the Holy Ghost, then appearing 
as a dove, served a merely temporary and inci- 
dental purpose, and should strictly be classed 
with previous manifestations, such as the horses 



104 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

and chariot of fire that carried up Elijah, the 
pillar of cloud and fire that led Israel, the star 
that guided the Magi, and the spirit that taught 
the prophets. All these, with others, were God's 
special manifestations for special objects, not con- 
nected with any distinct personality. 

But on the day of Pentecost this Holy Ghost 
receives not only a new name, but a new assign- 
ment, or official position, viz., to be expressly the 
great divine Teacher on earth. " He shall guide 
you into all truth'' said Jesus ; implying, " You 
are to have no other divine Teacher : my Father 
in heaven, and I at his right hand, by our influ- 
ence, under the new name of The Comforter, 
will come and make our abode with you, and 
finally subdue the world unto ourselves." 

At the Baptism, then, the manifestation being 
only specific and transient, while after the As- 
cension the Holy Ghost's relation was to be a 
universal and permanent one, it was proper and 
expressive that the dove (or Spirit) should be men- 
tioned as the last of the witnesses on the former 
occasion, and the first in the latter. 

Again : the manifestation at the baptism was 
the last of the series of the former class ; but in 
the new dispensation the Spirit was to be pre- 
eminently the Guide and Teacher. Hence also 
he would properly stand as the last witness at 
the Baptism ; and first, when spoken of as con- 



THE TRINITY AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 105 

nected with the new order of things, the Dispen- 
sation of the Spirit. 

We may appeal to the Church for the correct- 
ness of our conclusion that the Comforter is now 
the sole divine Teacher in spiritual things. What 
does any man know of the kingdom of God, unless 
he is taught by this divine Instructor ? 

We address those who have been " born of the 
Spirit." " The natural man," we know, " receiveth 
not the things of the Spirit of God : for they are 
foolishness unto him : neither can he know them, 
for they are spiritually discerned " (i Cor. ii. 14). 

Every person, therefore, will remain ignorant 
of this kingdom, and, we may add, ignorant of his 
own moral state, until he is enlightened by the 
Holy Spirit, the Comforter. In vain do we look 
elsewhere for this kind of instruction. We may 
learn much of God's general government from his 
word and his works ; but we must be taught by 
the Spirit in order to know anything of his spir- 
itual kingdom. 

Now, with this idea in our minds, let us look 
at these earthly witnesses. We have shown the 
character of the first, and, we may say, the prin- 
cipal, witness of the three ; for the other two, as 
will be seen, witness under him. And how does 
he witness " in earth," that is, to men, since wit- 
nessing to them is the only way he can witness 
" in earth " ? 



106 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

Just as the Saviour said he would : " He shall 
convince of sin, and of righteousness, and of judg- 
ment." 

Is not this precisely what he has been doing 
ever since the day of Pentecost ? How effectually 
he performed this work on that memorable day ! 
And he has been doing the same down to our 
time. 

He convinces every one to whom he comes of 
sin, showing him to be a condemned sinner, help- 
less in himself, and leading him to say in his 
heart, if not with his lips, " What shall I do ? " 
Just at this point the man is prepared to listen to 
the two other witnesses, — the water • and the 
blood. Though two, their testimony is one and 
the same ; for John says, " They agree in one." 
It will be remembered that " Christ came, not by 
water only, but by water and blood." The water 
alone not being deemed sufficient, the " blood " is 
added. 

The water evidently referred to his baptism. 
Though his baptism had nothing to do, intrinsi- 
cally, with our redemption, yet it had its place, — 
first, as an initiation into the church militant ; 
and, secondly, as an emblem of his death. Paul 
makes it a prominent emblem. " Know ye not 
that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus 
Christ, were baptized into his death ? Therefore 
we are buried with him by baptism into death " 
(Rom. vi. 3, 4). 



THE TRINITY AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 107 

The blood, or the shedding of blood, is the 
death. This is a common use of the word in the 
New Testament. The blood of Christ is his 
death. We have, then, in these two last witnesses, 
the emblem of his death, and the death itself. 
The emblem alone was not sufficient to show his 
death : " not by water only." The " blood," the 
third witness, must confirm the testimony of the 
emblem ; " and these three agree in one," viz., 
that men have broken God's law, and are con- 
demned. This the first witness teaches, and, with 
the help of the other two, shows that there is re- 
demption through the atonement made by the 
death of Jesus Christ. The first witness, .as we 
have said, is the Teacher ; the other two witness 
under him. He Himself shows man his condition, 
and then, by the other two, the way of release. 

"Jesus died, and paid it all, — all the debt I owe." 

Let us dwell a moment longer on these six 
witnesses. The first three proclaim the man 
Jesus to be the Son of God, and then return again 
into heaven. They do not profess to set forth 
the great errand on which he came : that was left 
for the three earthly witnesses. When the work 
of redemption was completed, this great, final 
Teacher comes, and by and in the last two earthly 
witnesses applies the redemptive grace to and in 
men. 



108 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

To ourself this seems wonderful ; and the whole 
is the provision of our heavenly Father, that we 
might escape the consequences of transgression. 
None but God could have devised such a plan ; 
and none but the God-man, with the Comforter 
to apply the whole, could have consummated it. 
We again adopt Paul's language to the Romans : 
" Who hath known the mind of the Lord ? or 
who hath been his counsellor ? " 

We have dwelt the longer on these verses, for 
the reason that some writers have clung to the 
seventh as proof of an original Trinity in the God- 
head. We ask the reader to turn again to this 
fifth chapter of John's first Epistle, and read from 
the sixth to the thirteenth verses. Let him notice 
the object of the writer, and see if he can discover 
anything, even a word, which favors the idea that 
the apostle was thinking of an eternal Trinity in 
the Godhead. Was he not treating wholly of the 
Lord Jesus Christ as the Son of God and the Sa- 
viour of men ? Let him judge, too, whether our 
observations do not accord with the writer's aim. 
Can any one believe that he would turn aside 
from his grand object, and seek to lead his reader 
back into an illimitable eternity, and set him to 
scanning a subject which neither he nor any one 
else can understand ? No : his theme was too 
important, and his time too valuable, to be thus 
thrown away. 



THE TRINITY AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. IOg 

We are not unaware that strong doubts exist 
as to the genuineness of these verses, more espe- 
cially the seventh, and that much has been written 
on both sides of the question. But, irrespective 
of their absence in so many manuscripts, we be- 
lieve them to be John's writing for the following 
reasons : — 

1. They are in good keeping with John's usual 
manner of expression. 

2. They form a connection with the preceding 
sixth verse, and with the following ninth, tenth, 
and eleventh verses. 

3. They are just what John needed to establish 
his doctrine ; and we think them most happily 
and cogently introduced at this very point. What 
stronger testimony could he have ? The eternal 
God, on two occasions, declares Jesus to be his 
" beloved Son : " next, the Son, by word and by 
miracle, asserts this title for himself: then, that 
the highest number of witnesses required by the 
law might not be wanting, the Spirit, in the form 
of a dove, alights and " abides on him." Again 
we ask, what testimony could be more worthy of 
trust ? John refers to it as of the most conclusive 
character. " If we receive the witness of men, 
the witness of God is greater." To what other 
witness of God could he refer than the above- 
named ? These witnesses have been, still are, 
and ever will be, essential to the strength of the 



110 BIBLTCAL STANDPOINT. 

Church ; and neither as a body nor in her indi- 
vidual members can she dispense with them. 

Let us now look at what might be regarded as 
the consequences of the views which have been 
advanced. 

First, what would the Church lose, if, surren- 
dering the doctrine of an eternal divine Son, she 
should accept the conclusions herein presented ? 
We have carefully examined this question, and 
cannot see that there would be the smallest 
loss. On the contrary, it seems to us there would 
be much gain. She would still have, as before, 
her eternal God. She would still have a Son of 
God of the same attributes and possessions with 
God the Father. Would it add anything to him 
if he were eternal ? He was begotten of God : 
God could not beget him a God from all eternity. 
The most He could do would be to unite him to 
Himself. This would place him on an equality 
with Himself; and what more than this could 
the Church have in the Son ? She would have a 
complete Saviour in this Son, who has made a 
perfect atonement for her and for all men if they 
will accept it. She has the Comforter, who is the 
Holy Ghost, including Father and Son, to teach 
the nature and things of the divine kingdom. She 
has a Trinity, perfect, divine, rational, whose ex- 
istence and application she can contemplate with 



THE TRINITY AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. Ill 

pleasure and profit We cannot see that the po- 
sition taken conflicts with any of the doctrines of 
the Church essential to the salvation or elevation 
of man. It does not, properly speaking, interfere 
with any of the existing denominational distinc- 
tions in the Christian church. In fact, it goes far 
towards reconciling them. The Trinitarian may 
remain such, since in every just sense a Trinity 
is preserved. The Unitarian may still hold to 
the fullest conviction of the Unity of God ; since, 
according to the views we think have been shown 
to be scriptural, Deity is one and the same eter- 
nally. What evil would follow we see not, unless 
it be an evil to give up long-cherished opinions 
which have no basis in the inspired Word. 

On the other hand, what would be gained ? 

First, as remarked by Dr. Watts (" Glory of 
Christ," p. 203), treating on the pre-existence of 
the human soul of Christ. He says, "This doc- 
trine casts a surprising light on many dark pas- 
sages in the word of God : it does very naturally 
and easily explain and reconcile several difficult 
places, both in the Old and New Testaments, 
which are very hard to be accounted for in any 
other way." 

Take, for instance, the first two verses in John's 
Gospel, on which we have commented. The 
usual interpretation seems to involve this passage 
in needless mystery. The mind involuntarily 



112 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

fixes on two beings. There is the Word which 
"was with God." We defy any one to explain 
this on the generally received doctrine of the Son. 
If the Word was God from all eternity, and there 
was also God the Father with whom " the Word 
was," we cannot efface from the mind the idea of 
two Gods. 

Again : take the words of God in the second 
Psalm, to which also we have referred : " Thou 
art my Son ; this day have I begotten thee : ask 
of me," &c. We will suppose at a certain period 
God had begotten or brought into existence the 
Logos or Son ; and he now informs this Son of 
his origin, and his relation to him : we would ask, 
What words could the Father use that would 
convey this information better and more directly 
than those recorded by the Psalmist ? Look at 
that short paragraph ; how concise and God-like ! 
— the almighty Father addressing this new-born, 
" only-begotten Son " (perhaps before the union), 
and declaring to him he was his son, and pledging 
to him a pre-eminence. How this harmonizes 
with the words of Jesus ! — " The Father loveth 
the Son, and hath given all things into his hands " 
(John iii. 35). " For thou lovedst me before the 
foundation of the world " (John xvii. 24). 

Now, if there is a doctrine fully supported by 
Scripture, of which it cannot be said, " It is made 
up of mysteries which no one even attempts to 



THE TRINITY AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 113 

explain," would it not be gain to the Church to 
adopt this in the place of one confessedly myste- 



rious 



? 



True, there are mysteries in the kingdom of 
God as well as in Nature. How God united a 
created being with himself, so that both should 
possess the attributes and sympathies of each, 
we do not know, as before said, though we are 
assured of the fact by the testimony of Jesus. 
The manner in these and many other of God's 
dealings is among " the secret things which be- 
long to God ; " but the facts are among the things 
revealed, which belong to us. 

Again : these views of Christ and of his union 
with the Father bring the doctrine of the Trinity 
within the reach of our faculties. It is no longer 
a mysterious idea beyond our capacity, but a doc- 
trine practically apprehended by the believer. It 
will be seen that the unity and personality of God 
the Father are herein strictly maintained without 
any imaginary division of his essence, and also 
the personality of the Son as in himself a distinct 
being. 

We have shown in what sense we ascribe per- 
sonality to the Holy Ghost. We believe in the 
personality of the three, — Father, Son, and Holy 
Ghost ; and it is easily seen that without mystery 
they are one. 

These are Bible terms ; and our motto is to 



114 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

follow strictly the obvious intention of the writers 
of the sacred volume. But that book does not 
teach that the three existed in the Godhead from 
all eternity ; this is human theory : rather it 
teaches that the Trinity was brought in with the 
completion of the economy of salvation. 

Further : not the least benefit to be derived 
from these views will be found in the clear, unob- 
structed channel, or "way," as Jesus calls it, to 
the one eternal Jehovah, with no other mediation 
than that of the man Jesus, our elder brother. 
Since he is one with the Father, in approaching 
him we approach the Father, as he tells us in 
John xiv. 6 : " No man cometh unto the Father, 
but by me." 

How elevating the thought that our facilities 
of access to this Elder Brother so far exceed 
those of the people when he was in the flesh ! 

We need not go to Jerusalem or Nazareth or 
Capernaum, or any other place, to find him ; but 
wherever we are, on land or sea, in the palace or 
in the dungeon, we can come to the same Man to 
whom the leper said, " If thou wilt, thou canst 
make me clean ; " the same from whom virtue 
went out to heal the woman who touched the hem 
of his garment. Yes, to this same Jesus (the only 
difference being that his body is now transformed 
into a spiritual body) we can come as familiarly 
as any who sought him when on earth, and with 



THE TRINITY AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. II5 

the advantage, also, of knowing that in addressing 
him we address the eternal God his Father. 

Is not the thought sublime, that we, imperfect 
creatures, naturally estranged from our beneficent 
Father, are brought near through our Elder 
Brother Jesus, and can hold communion with the 
Father, and tell him all our wants, as really and 
as readily as we could to our natural brother ? 
Let us keep in mind that it is the one eternal 
God, his and our Father, whom we thus approach ; 
not an eternal Son : we know no place for, nor 
need of such a son. We have free and complete 
access to God the Father through our Brother 
Jesus. What can we ask or wish for more ? 

Jesus said to Mary Magdalene, " Go to my 
brethren, and say unto them, I ascend to my Fa- 
ther and your Father ; to my God and your God " 
(John xx. 17). Here the man Jesus places him- 
self on a perfect equality with his disciples. He 
calls them " brethren," and affirms that God was 
his Father and his God, as really as He was their 
Father and their God. And, as to his humanity, 
in itself considered, he was on an equality with 
them, and just as dependent ; but we remember 
that this Brother is so united to God as to be one 
with him in so close connection, that whatever we 
say to him we say to the infinite Jehovah. The 
thought seems well nigh overwhelming. We, 
wonder not that we read, " When he bringeth in 



Il6 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

the first-begotten into the world, he saith, And 
let all the angels of God worship him ; " for it is 
plain that in worshipping him they would worship 
the Father in him. Was not this a proper de- 
mand when this complex person, Father and Son 
united in one, descended from heaven, and took 
upon Him a human body prepared for Him ? And 
was 'not this body a suitable tenement for such a 
personage, — generated by the Holy Ghost, born 
of the blessed virgin ? Surely a fit incarnation 
for such a being, in order to dwell with men on 
earth ! 

And now we have in Christ Jesus, not only lit- 
erally what was said by the prophet some seven 
hundred years before the event, " Emmanuel," 
God with us ; but more, — God one of us. 

Was it strange that at such an event the angels 
should sing, " Glory to God in the highest, on 
earth peace, good-will towards men " ? Think for 
a moment who this person is who was thus an- 
nounced from heaven : no less than the Creator 
of the world. Is it not astonishing, when all this 
was for man's benefit, that he should be so slow 
to respond to these ascriptions ? And how ap- 
propriate is the language of Isaiah when applied 
to this personage ! — "For unto us a child is born, 
unto us a son is given : and the government shall 
be upon his shoulder : and his name shall be 
called Wonderful, Counsellor, The Mighty 



THE TRINITY AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 117 

God, The Everlasting Father, The Prince 
of Peace " (Is. ix. 6). How wonderfully we see 
all these combined, literally, in the babe of Beth- 
lehem ! 

But this could not be were he an eternal Son. 
How could such a Son be called " The Everlast- 
ing Father " ? How different from this was the 
teaching of Jesus ! 

Again : how these views tend to exalt the hu- 
man race ! That the Infinite Jehovah should be 
united to one of our own species, the first-begotten 
Son ; and coming with him into our world, with 
and in him be united to a human body, also of 
his own begetting, and in that body dwell on 
earth as one of us, — what wonderful condescen- 
sion and mercy ! In view of the sublimity of this 
subject, we can exclaim with the apostle, " Great 
is the mystery of godliness. God was manifested 
in the flesh." * 

Once more. These views effectually undermine 
and completely demolish the arguments mainly 
relied on against the divinity of Jesus Christ : for 
he possessed all that God possessed. This is 
abundantly shown in the New Testament. If 
therefore there is divinity in God, and Christ pos- 
sessed all that is in God^he must possess the 
same divinity. This is one of the principal points 
of this little work, to show that the divinity of the 

* Marginal reading. 



Il8 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

One eternal God is the divinity and the only 
divinity of Jesus Christ. Instead therefore of 
detracting in the least from the divine character 
of the Saviour, he is exalted above measure, in 
that he is made equal with God. Therefore " all 
men should honor the Son even as they honor the 
Father." 

We have aimed to show that the doctrine of an 
eternal divine Son is not found in the Bible. We 
have also aimed to show, from Scripture authority, 
who the Son of God is, and what constitutes his 
divinity. How far we have succeeded, the reader 
must judge. A certain writer in "The Edinburgh 
Review," discussing a religious doctrine, says, 
" Whoever finds it in the New Testament must 
first put it there." So say we of the doctrine of 
an eternal divine Son. We know that, like many 
other prevailing opinions, it is imagined to be there ; 
but, from the obvious meaning of the writers of that 
book, we are unable to discover it. 

We well know that the pre-existence of the hu- 
man soul of Christ is no new doctrine. It was 
taught many centuries ago. When it was first 
promulgated, we are unable to say. It was ad- 
vocated by men of high standing in the Church 
in the early part of the eighteenth century. The 
learned and pious Dr. Watts, after much examina- 
tion, embraced and ably defended it. He wrote 
a special work on the subject, entitled " The 



' THE TRINITY AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 1 1 9 

Glory of Christ." He shows from the Scriptures 
that the human soul of Christ actually existed 
before the creation of the world, and that the 
creating or begetting of it was the first act of 
God of which we have any knowledge. He 
shows, further, that God so took this soul of 
Christ into union with himself, that the two be- 
ings became in this way one. As would natural- 
ly happen, we have been led to use, in setting 
forth .our views, much the same Scriptures as 
those to which he refers. 

But we must be allowed to say that it was more 
than three years after our own mind was settled 
on this subject, that we first learned that Dr. 
Watts or any other person (except one private 
individual) ever held such a view. When, provi- 
dentially, Dr. Watts's book fell into our hands, 
we were surprised at the coincidence of our ideas 
with his concerning Christ's pre-existence and 
union with the Father. Eventually we saw that 
these views conflicted with the received doctrine 
of the Trinity. For, if the human soul of Christ 
was the " first-begotten " Son of God, then there 
could be no eternal first-begotten Son ; and, if no 
eternal Son, there could not be an eternal Trinity. 
After much examination, comparing scripture with 
scripture, we were compelled to adopt the views 
herein set forth. 

Then, with respect to the third person in the 



120 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

Trinity, we found ourselves in a somewhat similar 
embarrassment. We saw that in the Comforter 
Christ had instituted a person, whom he called 
" aizother" We saw that if there were already 
three persons in the Godhead, and Christ insti- 
tuted another Person under the name of the 
Comforter, then we could not see how to avoid 
the conclusion that there would be a fourth per- 
son in the so called Trinity. On diligent search, 
as in the other cases, we could find no scriptural 
ground for believing in an eternal third person in 
the Godhead ; or in any third person at all, before 
the coming of the Comforter. There had been, 
indeed, various manifestations of God ; but we 
could see no propriety in attributing to them a 
personality. We were obliged to abandon the 
idea of an eternal Son, also that of an eternal 
third person, and be content with the teachings 
of the sacred volume. We find in this all that 
man needs. 

A word more about Dr. Watts. We could not 
learn that he ever relinquished the doctrine of an 
eternal Son in the Godhead. Yet he must have 
seen that his views of Christ's pre-existence were 
in direct conflict with that doctrine ; for, if the 
created human soul of Christ was the Logos who 
was with the Father at the beginning, and was 
the Son by whom God made the worlds, he could 
not be an eternal Son ; and if there was no eternal 
Son, then there was no eternal Trinity. 



THE TRINITY AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 121 

This, we think, was his difficulty. He had 
taught the common doctrine of the Trinity in 
prose and song. He also very clearly and scrip- 
turally advocated the other doctrine as to the 
nature of Christ. The two doctrines, of course, 
could not both be true ; and yet he stood as the 
advocate of both. It is not to be wondered at, 
that, as some have said, " his mind was unset- 
tled." 

The Unitarians claimed him as having given 
up Trinitarianism and embraced their views. On 
the other hand it was said he had relinquished his 
views with regard to the pre-existence of Christ's 
humanity. Rev. S. Palmer, the author of Me- 
moirs of Watts and Doddridge, who claimed to 
possess his latest writings, tacitly denies this re- 
port, showing the contrary from documents of Dr. 
Watts. The probability is, that he was re-examin- 
ing the whole subject when his Master called him 
up higher. 

We have^no evidence that what we have sug- 
gested were the difficulties in the doctor's mind ; 
but it is quite evident, that, in his latter days, he 
was troubled on these points ; and that he should 
have been so is not surprising. Our conclusions 
touching Dr. Watts are drawn from our own per- 
sonal exercises. We well remember the morass 
we had to wade through when compelled to give up 
a doctrine cherished as fundamental in the evan- 



122 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

gelic Church, and one to which we subscribed 
when uniting with the church militant. But we 
had pledged ourselves to follow the Saviour in 
our doctrinal views as well as in practice, so far 
as we could understand his teachings ; and this 
we trust we have done. Accordingly, we gave 
up the doctrine of an eternal divine Son ; also 
that of an eternal third person ; and consequent- 
ly, that of a Trinity of persons in the Godhead, 
whether real or supposed. In place thereof, we 
accept a present, active, comprehensible Trinity, 
such as the Saviour and the apostles appear to 
us to present, — a Trinity which finds its final 
and complete expression in the person and work 
of the Comforter. This is a Trinity which we 
can not only understand, but whose value and 
power we can feel, — a Trinity of practical use 
to man. 

Several eminent divines, about the time of Dr. 
Watts, embraced the doctrine of the pre-existence 
of Christ's human soul ; but that any One of them 
took the ground that there was no Trinity in the 
Godhead, we could not learn. This seemed to be 
too near Arianism and modern Unitarianism to 
be accepted. Though firmly believed by some 
of the most pious and able divines to be a doc- 
trine of the Bible, it was allowed for the time to 
sink into neglect. 

The learned and pious Bishop Fowler of 



ADDITIONAL SCRIPURE TESTIMONY. 1 23 

Gloucester said, in a treatise on the pre-exist- 
ence of Christ's humanity, " There is no Chris- 
tian doctrine more clearly delivered than this, 
and even by the Saviour himself, and often re- 
peated by him ; and there is not more plain and 
undeniable evidence for any one article of faith 
than for this doctrine ; and that this is the sense 
in which, most certainly, the disciples of our Lord 
understood his declarations." Can any one ex- 
amine the teachings of the Saviour and the writ- 
ings of the apostles on this point, and come to any 
different conclusion ? 

Additional Scripture Testimony. 

We now call attention to several passages of 
Scripture, most of which have not been quoted 
in these pages, but which have a direct bearing 
on the subjects under consideration ; and, that 
the force both of the passages themselves and of 
our remarks upon them may be more distinctly 
seen, we will state what we understand to be the 
general doctrines of the evangelical Church on 
these points, adducing in contrast therewith our 
own views. 

We understand the long-cherished doctrines of 
the Church to be these : ' First, that the supreme 
God is one eternal, underived being. Second, 
that He exists in three persons (or manifesta- 



124 BIBLTCAL STANDPOINT. 

tions or distinctions ; for herein there is diversity 
of opinion : though all claim, that, in some sense, 
he is three, viz., Father, Son, and Holy Ghost) ; 
and that these three, all equally eternal, consti- 
tute his being, and are the first, second, and third 
persons in a divine Trinity. Third, that four 
thousand years or more after the creation, the 
Father sent this divine Son, one in will with him- 
self, to earth, where he united himself with Jesus, 
the babe of Bethlehem ; and that this union of 
the eternal Son with the human child made the 
child divine, and constituted the Christ. Not 
that it transformed the humanity of Jesus into 
divinity, but constituted him divine as well as hu- 
man. 

Such is the general belief ; though some who 
are reputed orthodox may partially dissent. 

Now, we take the position that there is not a 
shadow of evidence that any of the sacred writers 
ever entertained or designed to teach the idea of 
an eternal divine Son, or of a third person in the 
Godhead ; or of a third person at all, until the 
Comforter, promised by Jesus, was manifested on 
the day of Pentecost. 

A word further before proceeding with our 
quotations. We do not consider that a belief in 
either of these schemes of doctrine is essential to 
salvation, or that clearly-defined views as to the 
character and atonement of Christ are indispen- 



ADDITIONAL SCRIPTURE TESTIMONY. 125 

sable in order to enter into life. Cornelius, evi- 
dently, had no distinct views of Christ as a 
Saviour ; yet he was undoubtedly a pious man, 
and an heir of heaven, before Peter preached to 
him the way of redemption through Christ. The 
eloquent Apollos was, unquestionably, a Christian 
before Aquila and Priscilla " expounded to him 
the way of God more perfectly." Very few Chris- 
tians have an understanding of the plan of re- 
demption, when first adopted into the family of 
God. It is a cause of gratitude that the way of 
eternal life is level to the capacity of any person. 
It is simply to repent and to accept the offered 
Saviour. 

To examine the testimony of Scripture, it is 
not necessary to quote the passages consecutive- 
ly as they stand in the New Testament. 

John i. 15:" John [the harbinger] bare witness 
of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I 
spake, He that cometh after me is preferred be- 
fore me : for he was before me? (See also the 
thirtieth verse.) Then in verse 18, before referred 
to, he says, " No man hath seen God at any time ; 
the only-begotten Son, which is [or was, as ex- 
plained by some] in the bosom of the Father, he 
hath declared him." He says further (verses 32, 
34), " I saw the Spirit descending from heaven 
like a dove, and it abode upon him. And I saw, 
and bare record that this is the Son of God." 



126 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

On whom did the Spirit abide ? Was it not on 
the man Jesus, whom John had just baptized ? 
And was it not that same man of whom John 
bears record " that this is the Son of God " ? 
Should any one say that John in these verses 
refers to the divine Son united with the man 
Jesus, we beg to ask him where he gets this 
information. To the same purport is verse 36, 
where John, " looking upon the man Jesus as he 
walked, saith, Behold the Lamb of God ! " 

Again : in the memorable conversation with 
Nicodemus, in the third chapter of this Gospel, 
Jesus says (verse 13), "No man hath ascended 
up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, 
even the Son of man, which is in heaven." Sev- 
eral writers have seized on the clause, " The Son 
of man which is in heaven," as proof of the inde- 
pendent divinity of Christ, arguing that, as a man 
on earth, he could not be in heaven at the same 
time, and that he must therefore refer to his 
divine nature, in which, as God, he fills immen- 
sity, and can thus be at once both in heaven and 
on earth. But do they not forget that it is the 
Son of man who is said to be in heaven, and that 
this title always includes the humanity, and gen- 
erally means the humanity alone ? 

Further : in the eighteenth verse of the first 
chapter, just quoted, the harbinger calls this Son 
of man " the only-begotten Son ; " and we think 



ADDITIONAL SCRIPTURE TESTIMONY. 1 27 

it has been already shown that the only-begotten 
Son was that human soul which was " the be- 
ginning of the creation of God." The name 
" Son of man," here given him, seems to confirm 
this position. Now, if the phrase " is in heaven " 
may, as some say, properly read " was in heaven," 
the meaning of the passage is clear. The con- 
text and natural sense favor this rendering. 

This thirteenth verse is evidently a confirma- 
tion of what was said in the eleventh, " We speak 
that we do know, and testify that we have seen." 
Now, to justify this declaration, Jesus says to his 
inquirer that no man on earth, except himself, 
could declare what he had seen and heard in 
heaven ; for the reason that no other man had 
been there. 

It will be remembered that Nicodemus, from 
the first, recognized him as " a teacher come from 
God." Jesus talks with him as a man to a man, 
and uses his common title, the " Son of man." 
We do not suppose he understood exactly how 
Jesus was a teacher come from God, though he 
believed it was so : yet we insist that the words 
of Christ very clearly explained to him the fact. 
The Son of man, the person then talking with 
him, had been in heaven, had come down thence, 
had assumed the human body, and in that body 
was now telling him what he had seen and heard 
in the heavenly world. He only could give such 



128 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

testimony. Is not this the natural import of the 
language which he uses ? 

We have also in this third chapter further tes- 
timony of Christ, from John the Baptist. We 
ask the reader to turn to this chapter, and read 
from the twenty-seventh verse to the end, that 
he may be the better prepared to judge of the 
correctness of our remarks on some of these 
verses. " He that cometh from above is above 
all : he that is of the earth is earthly, and speak- 
eth of the earth : he that cometh from heaven is 
above all. And what he hath seen and heard, 
that he testifieth" (verses 31, 32). We have be- 
fore referred to this passage, but adduce it here 
as intimately connected with the whole para- 
graph to which we are calling attention.. Its 
close agreement with the above-quoted declara- 
tions of Christ to Nicodemus will not escape no- 
tice. Both speak of what the Son of man saw 
and heard in heaven. 

Here, and in several of the preceding and fol- 
lowing verses, the harbinger is evidently show- 
ing the contrast between himself and Christ as 
two men. He was "of the earth," that is, born 
only here. " He that cometh from above," that 
is, begotten or born in heaven, and come down 
to earth, "is above all." He can tell what he 
saw and heard before he left heaven. 

We quote also verses 34, 35 : "For he whom 



ADDITIONAL SCRIPTURE TESTIMONY. 1 29 

God hath sent speaketh the words of God : for 
God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him. 
The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all 
things into his hand." Let the reader carefully 
ponder these verses, comparing the last two with 
those just before cited, and then judge for him- 
self whether the following remarks are well 
founded. 

We have said that it involves, if not impro- 
priety, at least confusion of thought, to speak of 
God the Father as sending God the Son. And 
how could it be said that God the Father giveth 
not to God the Son the Spirit by measure ; that 
is, by limit ? Would not the Son, if inherently 
God, of the same essence as the Father, have al- 
ways possessed the same measure of the Spirit 
as the Father ? How, then, is the Spirit given 
at all, if the alleged receiver already has all that 
the giver possesses ? Does not the expression, 
"giveth the Spirit," necessarily convey the idea 
of two distinct beings, one bestowing and the 
other receiving ? Can we possibly get any other 
idea from the expression ? This passage accord- 
ingly represents the Son as destitute of the Spir- 
it, except as bestowed on him by the Father, and 
agrees with what Christ declared, that " the Son 
can do nothing of himself," showing that he was 
impotent as to any divine power, save as he re- 
ceived it from the omnipotent Father. 
9 



130 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

Here, again, we see how well John the harbin- 
ger and Christ agree. John declared, " God giv- 
eth not the Spirit by measure unto him." Christ 
says, "All mine are thine, and thine are mine" 
(John xvii. 10); and, "All power is given unto 
me in heaven and in earth" (Matt, xxviii. 18). 
John says again (verse 35), "The Father loveth 
the Son, and hath given all things into his hand." 
What meaning is there in this, if applied to God 
the Father and a Son in himself divine ? — God 
the Father loving God the Son, of the same es- 
sence with himself. God loves God, — the Being 
loving and the Being loved the same : this would 
indeed be mystery. On this ground, why not 
with all propriety reverse the order, and say, 
" God the Son loveth God the Father, and hath 
given all things into his hand " ? Both, in the 
supposition, are literally and absolutely God ; 
neither, then, is superior or inferior. Otherwise 
they form two beings ; in which case one could 
not be in himself God. If this be admitted, the 
system of an eternal divine Son at once disap- 
pears. 

If the reader will take the language of Nico- 
demus as literally true, that the man Christ was 
a " teacher come from God ; " if he will allow that 
God, literally his Father, took the Son into union 
with himself, dwelt in him on earth, and worked 
with and through him his mighty works, — he 



ADDITIONAL SCRIPTURE TESTIMONY. 131 

will find all the above-quoted passages, and the 
prayer in the seventeenth of John, natural and 
easily understood. 

John v. 23 : " That all men should honor the 
Son, even as they honor the Father. He that 
honoreth not the Son honoreth not the Father 
which hath sent him." This passage is often ad- 
duced in proof of Christ's inherent divinity. The 
argument from it is, that, " as the Son is of the 
same essence as the Father, he of course de- 
serves equal honor." The passage certainly is 
evidence of divinity in Christ ; but is it evidence 
of inherent divinity ? Does this accord with the 
other teachings of Christ? Does he not often 
assert the inferiority of the Son, and that the 
ground of his superiority over men lies in his 
union with the Father ? — not with a divine Son, 
but " the Father that dwelleth in me," as though 
he would say again, " I and my Father are one." 
This is the reason why " all men should honor 
the Son, even as they honor the Father," and 
why " he that honoreth not the Son honoreth not 
the Father." The thought is, that the way to 
honor God is to honor him in Christ. In the 
immediately preceding verse he says, "The Fa- 
ther judgeth no man, but hath committed all 
judgment unto the Son," showing that the Fa- 
ther authorizes and empowers the Son. Paul in 
his speech at Athens says, " God hath appointed 



132 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

a day, in the which he will judge the world in 
righteousness by that, man whom he hath or- 
dained." Was not " that man," thus referred to, 
the Son, to whom God "hath committed judg- 
ment, and whom all should honor even as they 
honor the Father " ? If it was an eternal divine 
Son, Paul makes a most serious mistake in call- 
ing him a "man." Take, however, Jesus' own 
words, " I am in the Father, and the Father in 
me," and grant that the two, by virtue of this 
union, are one, and there is no discrepancy be- 
tween him and Paul, and no difficulty in under- 
standing them. 

Yes : it was " that man," our Elder Brother, 
and your brother, dear reader, if you have faith 
in him, to whom all judgment has been commit- 
ted ; and Paul was right in telling the Athenians 
that they, with all the rest of the world, were to 
be judged by "that man whom He hath or- 
dained." How consoling the thought that our 
Brother, who is also our Redeemer, is to be our 
Judge ! Whom else could we desire ? 

John vi. 46 : " Not that any man hath seen the 
Father, save he which is of God : he hath seen 
the Father." Christ here speaks of himself as a 
man like other men ; and we detect no reference 
to a divine nature ; no man (and he speaks of 
men generally) save himself alone, who is direct- 
ly, soul and body, of God. Now, it is certain 



ADDITIONAL SCRIPTURE TESTIMONY. 1 33 

that neither he nor any other man could see 
God by natural vision ; for " God is a Spirit ; " 
and spirit can be seen by no bodily eye. Jesus, 
then, in order to have seen the Father, must 
have existed as a man in a different state from 
that in which he then was ; and what could it 
have been but his pre-existent state ? We claim 
this to be a fair deduction from the premises. 
Alone it may not afford positive proof of our 
doctrine ; but in connection with so many simi- 
lar passages, and in the absence of a single item 
of evidence to the contrary, we offer it as a strong 
confirmation of our views. 

This passage harmonizes with, and helps ex- 
plain, Christ's words to Nicodemus, " We speak 
that we do know, and testify that we have seen." 
In each instance he speaks as a man. Then, too, 
the expression " He which is of God " implies 
derivation from God, and is inapplicable to a 
divine Son unless we allow, which we cannot, an 
" eternal generation." 

John vi. 5 1 : " I am the living bread which 
came down from heaven : if any man eat of this 
bread, he shall live forever : and the bread that I 
will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life 
of the world." 

This was said in the discourse at Capernaum, 
from which the last-mentioned quotation was 
made. Many of the disciples said, " It is a hard 



134 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

saying ; " and the Jews objected, " How can this 
man give us his flesh to eat ? " 

The term " flesh " in Scripture has a variety of 
meanings. It often signifies humanity, or man, 
as including both soul and body. This seems to 
be the meaning in the passage under considera- 
tion. In giving his " flesh . . . for the life of the 
world," our Lord doubtless means that he would 
yield up his entire humanity, his soul and body, 
to bear the penalty of the divine law, for man's 
salvation. Now, by employing together the two 
figures, "flesh" and "bread" (or "manna"), our 
Lord represents what neither of these figures 
would express alone. The "flesh," as already 
said, points to the body and the soul of Christ, 
both of which were necessary in making a per- 
fect offering, a complete atonement. "Thou shalt 
make his soul an offering for sin " (Isa. liii. 10). 
"A body hast thou prepared me" (Heb. x. 5). 
Now, as the body of Christ did not come down 
from heaven, though his soul did, the term 
" flesh " would not be the suitable one to express 
the idea of Christ's pre-existence. It would im- 
ply that body, as well as soul, had been in 
heaven. Hence the expression "bread [or "man- 
na "] which came down from heaven " was used, 
as fitly declaring that the soul alone, the hu- 
man soul of Christ, came down from heaven. 

And to express the whole truth, — that is, both 



ADDITIONAL SCRIPTURE TESTIMONY. 1 35 

that Christ, as to his soul, came from heaven, and 
that he suffered and died in the body, — these 
two figurative expressions, "bread" and "flesh," 
are used together : " the bread that I will give is 
my flesh." 

It was, then, the voluntary act of the humanity 
of Christ thus to come from heaven, to give him- 
self for the life of the world. Hence they must 
eat his flesh, and drink his blood (which is the 
life : Gen. ix. 4) ; that is, in order to possess eter- 
natiife, they must appropriate by faith the bene- 
fits purchased by his death. Neither his disci- 
ples nor the Jews understood him ; how could 
they ? for he was referring to the way of salva- 
tion through the atonement, which was not then 
completed. He sought to explain it to the disci- 
ples ; but not till the day of Pentecost, when the 
new Teacher came and "guided them into all 
truth," was the matter made clear to them. 

The whole discourse teaches us that in Christ 
alone is eternal life. The manna given to the 
Israelites was the emblem of this life. As the 
manna seemed to come from the visible heavens, 
so he (i. e., his humanity, in union with the Fa- 
ther, the spiritual manna or bread) came down 
from the true heaven to give life to the world. 

John vii. 28, 29 : " Ye both know me, and ye 
know whence I am : and I am not come of my- 
self, but he that sent me is true, whom ye know 



I36 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

not. But I know him : for I am from him, and 
he sent me." 

Let the reader consider well these verses, and 
then say if the language would naturally be used 
in relating a transaction between God the Father 
and a God the Son, of the same essence and will. 
Does not the whole representation point clearly 
to two beings with distinct wills ? Especially 
the last declaration, " I am from him, and he sent 
me : " if this, in connection with the many others 
quoted, does not indicate two beings and two wills, 
then we do not understand the force of words. 
We think, too, that any attempt to turn these 
passages from their plain and obvious meaning is 
an unwarranted use of the sacred writings. 

John viii. 14, 23 : " For I know whence I came, 
and whither I go ; but ye cannot tell whence I 
come, and whither I go." 

" Ye are from beneath ; I am from above : ye 
are of this world ; I am not of this world." 

These verses do not favor the position we 
have taken, provided the speaker includes in 
himself a divine, eternal Son. But if we include 
such a Son here, what shall we do in the follow- 
ing twenty-eighth verse? — where he says, "When 
ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye 
know that I am he ; " that is, " I am this Son of 
man who was from above," who adds, " I do noth- 
ing of myself ; but as my Father hath taught me, 



• ADDITIONAL SCRIPTURE TESTIMONY. 1 37 

I speak these things." If a divine Son is included 
here (we say it reverently), he is represented as a 
very inefficient being. He is impotent, can do 
nothing of himself. The far-fetched comment, 
that, as the divine Son is of the same essence as 
the Father, he can do nothing separately from 
the Father, is an exposition of these and similar 
passages which fails to commend itself. The 
context and all Christ's teachings on this point 
preclude such an interpretation. The whole 
tenor of these passages goes to show the in- 
ability of the person speaking to do anything 
of himself. He must be taught by the Father 
even what to speak. He did not come into the 
world of himself, but was sent, as verse 42 
shows. 

Again : John xii. 49 : " For I have not spoken 
of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave 
me a commandment, what I should say, and what 
I should speak." Here is the same idea fully 
developed. Whoever is the speaker using this 
pronoun of the first person, he represents himself 
as altogether inferior to the Father, and subject 
entirely to his direction and control. Even if we 
suppose that, according to the common doctrine, 
the man Jesus was united to a divine Son, and, in 
all these passages, includes in himself the divine 
and the human Jesus, would not this seem a very 
improper use of language for the purpose ? Would 



I38 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

it not lead his hearers to think of him as another 
being, inferior to the Father ? Does it not con- 
vey that idea to us ? 

John xiii. 3,4: " Jesus knowing that the Father 
had given all things into his hands, and that he 
was come from God, and went to God ; he riseth 
from supper," &c. We cannot see the meaning 
of these words of John, unless they apply to the 
soul of Christ. Jesus was his human name, which 
in itself did not necessarily include the divine na- 
ture. There were many of that name among the 
Jews : in their language the name was " Joshua," 
a favorite name in all the tribes. It was the man 
Jesus who went to God from Mount Olivet ; and 
was not this the same man that " came from 
God " ? He ascended in the same body which 
he took upon him at his birth in Bethlehem, this 
having been glorified, or transformed into a spir- 
itual body from the morning of the Resurrection. 
But on special occasions, as when showing him- 
self at different times to his disciples, he re- 
assumed the visible, material body. 

Does the name Jesus above include a divine 
Son? If so, it shows him to be dependent on 
and inferior to his Father, and receiving from his 
Father all he possessed. If the name includes 
only the humanity, then it was the humanity, and 
that only, that came from God. 

In short, we cannot find, from anything that 



ADDITIONAL SCRIPTURE TESTIMONY. 1 39 

John says of Christ here or elsewhere, that he 
ever thought of him as united to an eternal divine 
Son. He makes his divinity consist in his union 
with the Father. He seems to us to have clearly 
understood this, and to have written with this 
thought in his mind. The other apostles appear 
to have had a similar understanding. We cannot 
doubt that the primitive disciples generally held 
the same view, so far as they had knowledge of 
Christ. 

John xiv. 24, 28 : " And the word which ye 
hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me." 

" If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I 
said, I go unto the Father : for my Father is 
greater than I." 

We will not detain attention long on these 
verses. If the reader can understand the pro- 
nouns "me," "I," and "my," here applied by Jesus 
to himself, as including an eternal Son equal to 
the Father, his capacity far exceeds ours. If lan- 
guage can be used to represent two beings, the 
one subordinate to the other, we think this lan- 
guage does so. If Jesus had said, " God who 
dwelleth in me is greater than I," whether it were 
the Father or the Son, no one would have doubted 
that the word " I " included only the humanity ; 
and, if a divine Son was united to him, why did 
not Jesus say, " The Son who dwelleth in me is 
greater than I " ? If there was such a Son, why 



140 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

is there not some allusion to him in Christ's 
preaching ? 

We must remind the reader not to mistake our 
position with regard to Christ, lest he suspect us 
of lowering the view of his character. We believe 
him to be verily God, and verily man, — man as 
to his human soul, begotten by the Father, and 
also as to his body, which was born of a woman ; 
and God by virtue of a special union with his 
Father such as to make them one. The word 
Christ (the Anointed) includes both the Father 
and the begotten human soul, or God and man ; 
and the begetting and union were before the cre- 
ation of the world. " In the fullness of time " this 
complex being took a human body. Let the reader 
keep in mind these cardinal ideas while we pro- 
ceed to notice a few additional passages. 

John xv. 24 : " If I had not done among them 
the works which none other man did, they had 
not had sin : but now have they both seen and 
hated both me and my Father." 

If the man Jesus wrought his miraculous works 
by the aid of a divine Son, how had they seen and 
hated his Father ? In that case they would have 
seen and hated Jesus and the divine Son ; for 
what they saw of God was in his works through 
Jesus : and would not Jesus rather have said, 
" they have seen and hated both me and the 
Son " ? 



ADDITIONAL SCRIPTURE TESTIMONY. I4I 

John xvi. 27, 28 : " For the Father himself lov- 
eth you, because ye loved me, and have believed 
that I came out from God." 

" I came forth from the Father, and am come 
into the world : again, I leave the world, and go 
to the Father." The disciples then said, " By this 
we believe that thou earnest forth from God." 

Can any one suppose that the disciples under- 
stood that it was a divine Son who came forth 
from God and united himself with the man Jesus ? 
Was it Christ's intention that they should so 
understand him ? 

Col. i. 15-19: "Who is the image of the invis- 
ible God, the first-born of every creature : for by 
him were all things created, that are in heaven 
and in earth : . . . all things were created by him, 
and for him : and he is before all things, and by 
him all things consist. . . . Who is the beginning, 
the first-born from the dead ; that in all things he 
might have the pre-eminence. For it pleased the 
Father that in him should all fullness dwell." Here 
again, we see a confirmation of John the har- 
binger's expression, and from him we learn how 
the Son obtained this fullness : his words are, 
" God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him." 

The passage under consideration has already 
been examined in part, for a special purpose ; but 
we wish now more fully to call attention to it. 

This portion of the chapter is often cited as 



142 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

evidence of Christ's divinity ; and, in our view, it 
does, along with other scriptures, place that doc- 
trine beyond controversy. But, quite generally, 
we believe, it is made to apply to a divine Son, 
united with the man Jesus, and called the second 
person in the Godhead. It is this reference to an 
eternal Son that we call in question. We see not 
how the pronouns and other expressions here 
used can apply to such a Son. The clause, " He 
was before all things," harmonizes with what we 
have before said on John i. 1. Indeed, Paul, in 
these five verses of the Epistle to the Colossians, 
as well as in other places, agrees perfectly with 
the explanation which has been given of the first 
fifteen verses of John's Gospel. The declaration 
that " he was the first-born from the dead " cer- 
tainly applies exclusively to the man Jesus, for 
divinity cannot die ; and is not this the same per- 
son as " the first-born of every creature," to whom 
belongs the pre-eminence in all things, of which 
Paul speaks ? How natural and rational this 
passage seems, viewed from the position herein 
maintained ! 

Heb. i 6: " When he bringeth in the first- 
begotten into the world, he saith, And let all the 
angels of God worship him." 

This harmonizes with the above ; and our only 
comment shall be the language of the second 
Psalm, " Thou art my Son : this day have I be- 



ADDITIONAL SCRIPTURE TESTIMONY. I43 

gotten thee." Do not the terms " first-begotten " 
and " begotten," in these two places, refer to the 
same person ? and does not the Psalmist declare 
a time when he was begotten ? Were the common 
theory correct, should not the Psalmist have writ- 
ten, " From eternity have I begotten thee " ? 

1 Tim. iii. 16 : "Without controversy, great is 
the mystery of godliness : God was manifest 
[manifested] in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, 
seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, be- 
lieved on in the world, received up into glory." 

The best explanation of this verse is Christ's 
answer to Philip, John xiv. 10-12. Let the reader 
turn to this, and see how strikingly these words 
of Paul agree with those of Christ. 

Rev. i. 5 : " From Jesus Christ, who is the faith- 
ful witness, and the first-begotten of the dead, 
and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto 
him that loved us, and washed us from our sins 
in his own blood " [or " cleansed us from our sins 
by his death"]. 

We take this language to apply solely to the 
man Jesus. The descriptions, " the first-begotten 
of the dead," and " washed in his own blood," can 
refer only to his humanity. Yet in the eighth 
verse we see divinity and humanity so blended, 
as to be hardly distinguishable : " I am Alpha 
and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith 
the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is 



144 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

to come, the Almighty." " True," one may say ; 
"and how fitly does the language apply to the 
eternal Son as united to Jesus ! " This might be 
were it in accordance with the teachings of Jesus ; 
but his words allow of no such application. Re- 
peatedly and most impressively he declares that 
he received his divine power and authority from 
the Father, whom all confess to be " the Almighty." 
If Jesus claimed to have eternal life, and the 
power to impart it to his followers, as in the 
words, " I give unto them eternal life," he yet ex- 
pressly declares from whom, and how, he received 
that power : namely, — must we repeat it ? Yes ; 
for many minds are so bound up in the idea of an 
eternal divine Son, that it requires line upon line, 
and precept upon precept, to free them. We say 
then, he received it from the Father, as the pas- 
sage next considered will show ; and he received 
it by virtue of his union with the Father: "I and 
my Father are one." 

John v. 26, 27, 30 : " For as the Father hath 
life in himself, so hath he given to the Son to 
have life in himself; and hath given him author- 
ity to execute judgment also, because he is the 
Son of man." 

" I can of mine own self do nothing : as I hear, 
I judge : and my judgment is just ; because I 
seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father 
which hath sent me." 



ADDITIONAL SCRIPTURE TESTIMONY. I45 

We must confess we see not how these pas- 
sages can be so construed as to favor the gener- 
ally received views of the Son of God. All' will 
agree that the Son here mentioned is the Son of 
God. What, then, we ask, is the life which the 
Father hath in himself ? It is answered, " Unde- 
rived, eternal life." 

It follows, then, that there was a period when 
the Son did not possess this life ; for, had he 
always possessed it, the Father could not have 
given it to him. Hence the eternal life which 
the Son had in himself must have been derived 
from the Father. How it was derived we have 
repeatedly shown. Union with the Father would 
impart this, and with this all other things. " All 
things that the Father hath are mine " (John vi. 
15). " All power is given unto me in heaven and 
in earth" (Matt, xxviii. 18). 

In the above verses, again, two distinct beings 
are presented, each with his own will, the Father 
and the Son ; the Son inferior and subject to the 
Father, receiving from him eternal life, and au- 
thority to execute judgment, " because he is the 
Son of man." 

This same Son, acknowledged by all to be the 
Son of God, says, " I can of mine own self do 
nothing : as I hear, I judge : and my judgment is 
just ; because I seek not mine own will, but the 
will of the Father which hath sent me." It may 
10 



I46 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

be said, "The divine Son, being God, can do 
nothing separately from God the Father ; " but 
the added words, " as I hear, I judge," show this 
explanation to be erroneous. From whom did 
he hear ? 

According to the rules of interpretation laid 
down in the early part of this volume, the fore- 
going three verses, we think, establish our doc- 
trine concerning Christ. 

Matt. iii. 17: " This is my beloved Son, in 
whom I am well pleased." To whom would John 
and the bystanders suppose this communication 
from heaven was intended to refer ? Was it not 
to the man whom John had just baptized ? So 
also in the case of the similar declaration when 
Jesus was transfigured. Was there anything in 
either of these announcements which would lead 
the hearer to think of an eternal divine Son ? 
There was in both a manifestation of the living 
God ; but it came from the Father, of whom Jesus 
speaks as dwelling in him. 

We see in the above no Son other than the 
man Jesus, the only-begotten Son. 

2 Cor. v. 19 : "To wit, that God was in Christ, 
reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing 
their trespasses unto them." 

Note, Paul says, " God was in Christ ; " and 
this God, he repeatedly tells us, is " the Father 
of our Lord Jesus Christ." In this he agrees 



ADDITIONAL SCRIPTURE TESTIMONY. 1 47 

with Christ, who often impressed on his hearers 
the great truth that the Father was in him. But 
never does he thus speak of a divine Son ; and 
never, we may add, does Paul thus speak. Paul 
often refers to God the Father and to the Lord 
Jesus Christ as two beings. Rom. i. 7 : " Grace 
to you and peace from God our Father, and the 
Lord Jesus Christ," is an example. These salu- 
tations and benedictions were, for a while, unin- 
telligible to us. We could not see why he should 
make such a distinction between the Father and 
the Son ; for we supposed the Son to be inhe- 
rently God as well as the Father. But, when we 
came to understand that they were really two 
beings, who, though united, could be distinguished 
individually, our perplexity vanished. The bene- 
diction in the second letter to the Corinthians, in 
which the three persons in the New Testament 
Trinity are introduced, then became clear to us. 
Yet this benediction is often cited as proof of an 
eternal Trinity. 

But it must not be forgotten that Christ had 
established the Christian Trinity nearly thirty 
years previous to Paul's writing that letter, at the 
time when he promised the disciples that " an- 
other Comforter" should come after he should 
have been glorified. When, therefore, according 
to promise, He came on the day of Pentecost, the 
Trinity was completed ; and since the Trinity 



I48 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

was comprised in the Comforter, as before shown, 
and was to be thereafter the grand spiritual 
Teacher, how appropriate that He should be rec- 
ognized in His full character, as Father, Son, and 
Holy Ghost, by the apostles and all subsequent 
religious teachers ! 

When the three thousand were converted and 
made heirs of eternal glory by the operation of 
these persons in the Comforter on the occasion 
of his advent in his new position, how appropriate 
that these disciples should be baptized in the full 
name of this Trinity, thus recognizing each and 
all the divine Agents by whom their spiritual 
transformation had been accomplished. Hence, 
in the formula of baptism appointed by Christ to 
be observed in all coming ages, the importance 
of using the names of the three persons compos- 
ing this Trinity in the Comforter, in order to set 
forth the co-operation of the three in man's sal- 
vation. 

And how could the apostles, when writing to 
the churches, do less than call the attention of 
the Christians, who had just emerged from hea- 
then darkness, to this Trinity, especially having 
themselves made such advancement in the knowl- 
edge of Christ's kingdom through the teaching of 
this same agency ? It would naturally be their 
aim to introduce this subject on all proper occa- 
sions ; and hence we find it so generally brought 
forward in their letters. 



ADDITIONAL SCRIPTURE TESTIMONY. I49 

Phil. ii. 5-1 1 : " Let this mind be in you, which 
was also in Christ Jesus : who, being in the form 
of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with 
God," &c. This is also one of the passages con- 
fidently relied on to prove the inherent divinity 
of the Lord Jesus Christ. Doubtless it does im- 
ply his divine character. But does it teach a 
native divinity ? Does it not rather look towards 
a derived divinity ? " Being in the form of God." 
But, if he were eternal, and of the very essence 
of the Father, he would in himself be God. How 
does it strike the mind to say that God was in 
the form of God ? Does not the very expression, 
" in the form of," convey the idea of something 
less than God ? On the other hand, if we assume 
that the apostle was speaking, as doubtless he 
was, of the Son, and that the Son was the man 
Jesus, possessing soul and body, then, as the soul 
is spirit, and God is a Spirit, we have in this soul 
the nearest approach to the form or image of God 
of anything of which we have knowledge. Again : 
" thought it not robbery to be equal with God." 
If the apostle had in mind a divine Son, it would 
hardly be proper to speak of him as " equal with 
God ; " for he would, even if united with the man 
Jesus, be verily God. There would be no equality 
in the case. 

But, from the point of view we have taken, how 
naturally the whole passage reads. We behold a 



150 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

human Son in himself infinitely inferior to the 
Father ; but, by virtue of his union with the Fa- 
ther, "all things are given into his hands." He 
has them rightfully, and not by " robbery ; " and 
his Father, the giver, loses nothing by the be- 
stowal. God makes the Son his equal by this 
blessed union. Who can contemplate this with- 
out being drawn in adoration and gratitude to- 
wards his heavenly Father, and without a new 
emotion of love to the beloved Son ? What sub- 
limity in this idea : the man Jesus, our Brother, 
was made equal with the eternal God ! Not only 
equal : he was made ONE with the incomprehen- 
sible Jehovah, — one with him in creation, one in 
the care and government of his people, one in the 
sojourn on earth, one in the rending of the tomb 
and the ascension, and he is one with him still in 
carrying on the work of redemption. 

How perfectly this idea of Christ agrees with 
his description of the Comforter ! — God the Fa- 
ther, himself the Son, and their joint acting, per- 
sonified the Comforter, — three in ONE. 

I Cor. xv. 27, 28 : " For he hath put all things 
under his feet. But when he saith, all things are 
put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, 
which did put all things under him. And when 
all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall 
the Son also himself be subject unto him that put 
all things under him, that God may be all in all." 



ADDITIONAL SCRIPTURE TESTIMONY. 151 

Much ingenuity has been expended in the 
effort to harmonize this passage with the common 
theory of a divine Son ; and quite to the satis- 
faction, no doubt, of the writers and many others. 
Whitby, as quoted by Scott, evinces here great 
ability, and to us seems more plausible than any 
other commentator we have seen. Thousands, 
doubtless, and among them Dr. Adam Clarke, 
have accepted his views. We have not space to 
give Whitby's arguments, and hence shall not 
attempt to meet them. In discoursing on any 
subject, it is important, first of all, that the prem- 
ises be right ; since otherwise no dependence 
can be put on our deductions. Whitby at that 
time believed in the doctrine of an eternal Son. 
His efforts, therefore, were naturally directed to 
bring this passage into agreement with that the- 
ory. Our reply is, We do not know of such a 
Son. We have never heard of him except from 
sources not authoritative. The Son revealed to 
men is the first-born humanity of the Lord Jesus 
Christ. Let this be borne in mind, and the pas- 
sage needs no labored explanation. It explains 
itself, and means, we think, just what it obviously 
says. 

Our ideas are as follows : When the wicked 
shall have been consigned to their place, and the 
righteous received into their everlasting habi- 
tations, and death swallowed up in victory, then 



152 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

Christ's mediatorial work in redemption, and in a 
governmental capacity, will of course be com- 
pleted, but not, as is generally held, his entire 
mediatorial state. His mediatorial position will 
thenceforward be continued only in respect to 
worship. He will be the object through whom 
the Church triumphant will pay their adoration to 
the living God. There will be no separation of 
God the Father from his only-begotten Son : the 
redeemed will see and know God only in and 
through the Son. With the Father he will still 
receive the honors of the saints. This doubtless 
was expressed in one of those songs to which the 
exile in Patmos was allowed to listen : " Blessing, 
and honor, and glory, and power, be unto him 
that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb 
for ever and ever" (Rev. v. 13). The Lamb, we 
see, continues to have equal honors with him who 
sitteth upon the throne ; which confirms Christ's 
words ; in heaven they do " honor the Son even 
as they honor the Father." 

We offer these meditations as possibly a con- 
tribution to the understanding of this passage. 

Matt. xxvi. 53 : "Thinkest thou that I cannot 
now pray to my Father, and he shall presently 
give me more than twelve legions of angels ? " 

The pronouns " I," &c, which Jesus thus ap- 
plies to himself, can relate to him only as a man; 
and they are generally so understood : and, as he 






ADDITIONAL SCRIPTURE TESTIMONY. 153 

uses them here in the same sense as elsewhere, 
it is a fair inference that they generally refer to 
his humanity, to the exclusion of any idea of 
divine sonship. He could not of himself com- 
mand the army of angels, but must ask it of the 
Father. 

Thus might we go on citing Scripture, and 
filling page after page, enlarging our little book, 
however, beyond its intended limit. We must 
stop somewhere ; and it is believed sufficient 
evidence has been presented to satisfy a candid 
mind that the doctrine of an eternal divine Son 
is not taught in the Bible : and, if not, it is a doc- 
trine which exists only in the human imagina- 
tion. 

Nor are we able to see any benefit to be de- 
rived from such a Son. The Bible, and, so far 
as we know, all God's dealings, are for the good 
of mankind. But of what advantage to the race 
is this alleged divine Son ? We have literally a 
Son of God and Son of man, concerning whose 
origin we are instructed, of whom we can con- 
ceive, who is truly divine and truly human. We 
are taught also how he is divine and how he is 
human ; and all, practically and so far as needful, 
is within the range of our faculties. We have 
this Son of man, divine on the very principle on 
which he has been held to be divine for the last 
fifteen hundred years ; that is, by union with 



154 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

God. The councils and the Church say, " By 
union with the eternal Son of God : " Christ says, 
" By union with God the Father : " and we pre- 
fer to follow Christ, rather than the fathers or 
councils. 

On this point only arises our dissent respecting 
the divinity of the Son of man. But the differ- 
ence is quite essential : on it hinges the reality 
or non-reality of an eternal Trinity in the God- 
head. But here, with many, lies an insurmount- 
able barrier. " What ! " say they : " have the 
fathers, the great scholars, the profound and far- 
seeing theologians of the past and the present, 
been laboring under an error on this subject ? 
This cannot be." So, too, former advocates of 
the pre-existence of Christ's human soul hesi- 
tated, not being prepared, on the one hand, to 
say that the doctrine of an eternal Trinity was 
erroneous, or, on the other, that their views of 
Christ were not sufficiently supported. They 
found the Saviour's pre-existent humanity too 
plainly and repeatedly declared by himself to 
allow that to be seriously doubted. But they 
were not prepared to retract what they had said 
and written in favor of an eternal Trinity. Thus 
they were in a dilemma. 

This very difficulty held the writer in suspense 
for years. At length he resolved to examine the 
evidence of an eternal Trinity. After carefully 



ADDITIONAL SCRIPTURE TESTIMONY. J 55 

searching the word of God, he found nothing 
which he could accept as evidence of this doc- 
trine. As in regard to the doctrine of an eternal 
Son, he met, indeed, what commentators called 
evidence ; but it was not evidence to his mind. 
Occasion has been taken to refer to some of the 
alleged proofs of the eternal divinity of the Son, 
the insufficiency of which has been already seen. 
It is evident that the doctrine of an eternal 
Trinity is inseparably connected with the alleged 
eternity of the Son. There is not the same direct 
evidence against an eternal Trinity as against an 
eternal Son ; nor need there be ; for, if there is no 
eternal Son, there can be no eternal Trinity. 

We doubt not that the scriptures urged by 
various writers as proofs of an eternal Son and an 
eternal Trinity were to them satisfactory. The 
Rev. Theodore Parker once courteously said, in 
relation to an argument which we stated to him 
for the divinity of Christ, " It may be evidence to 
you, but it is n»ot to me : what is evidence to one 
man may not be to another." That is undoubt- 
edly true. Men frequently think they see evi- 
dence where there is none, and fail to see it 
where it is if it does not accord with their pre- 
conceived views. 

Here let us pause, and glance again at some of 
the manifestations and doings of this complex be- 
ing, — the Son in his union with the Father, pre- 



I56 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

vious to his advent. We find different names 
applied to him, such as " God," in the expres- 
sions, " God created," " God said, Let us make 
man ; " then as " Lord God," in speaking to 
Adam ; then as " Lord," in addressing Cain. 
He is called " the God of Israel," " the Lord 
God of Israel," " the God of Abraham," " the 
angel of the covenant," "the messenger of God," 
" God of the prophets," &c. 

He manifested himself now alone, as to Adam, 
Noah, Abraham, Moses, and others ; and now at- 
tended with angels, as to Abraham in the plains 
of Mamre, and to Jacob at Mahanaim. He as- 
sumed different appearances as occasion required. 
To Adam (probably), to Abraham, Jacob, Joshua, 
and others, he appeared as a man ; to Moses as a 
burning bush ; to Israel as a cloud by day, and as 
a pillar of fire by night ; on Sinai as a dreadful 
fire, smoke, and sound of trumpet ; then as a cloud 
resting on the tabernacle ; and so on. He was 
not confined to any one name or appearance, or 
mode of communicating his will. 

Now we behold this same complex being, divine 
and human, who created all things, who mani- 
fested himself under these various names and 
characters, and has interested himself in all the 
affairs of men, who has been worshipped and 
adored by every devout person from Adam to 
Mary " the mother of our Lord," — we see him 



ADDITIONAL SCRIPTURE TESTIMONY. 1 57 

at length clothed in flesh, and dwelling on earth 
as one of the human family. But how few recog- 
nized in that helpless babe, in that carpenter's 
son, the Creator of the universe, the God of 
Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, Elijah, and of all 
his people ! Verily, he humbled himself and be- 
came obedient, eventually, unto death. But he 
was not without witnesses. Angels knew him, 
and were sent down to herald his coming. 

Simeon, taught from above, hailed in him God's 
salvation. The wise men of the East, under the 
same guidance, came hundreds of miles to offer 
him their treasures. Led by " the star," they no 
sooner saw him than " they fell down and wor- 
shipped him." Why worship that infant child 
rather than any other ? We have no reason to 
think that he differed in appearance from other 
children, or that he excited unusual attention ex- 
cept in those who were taught from above. They 
could see a reason for their homage ; for in him, 
the first-begotten Son, was the eternal Jehovah, 
whose companion the Son had been in his actions 
and intercourse towards man through all the ages. 
We would say, Let not only "all the angels of 
God," but all the inhabitants of earth, " worship 
him ! " 

It is not needful again to trace the Son in his 
early life. We find no manifestations of the 
divinity that was in him till his earthly powers 



I58 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

were fully developed. His divinity being per- 
fect, if it was to be manifested though humanity, 
the humanity should be perfectly developed. 
Hence he was in obscurity as to his divine char- 
acter, till he had reached the age of maturity. 
Then, after sanctioning by his example the rite 
of initiation into the Christian Church militant 
which he was about to establish, we see him 
" manifesting forth his glory," as that same be- 
ing, God and man, which he had been in the ages 
past ; the man, however, is now more prominent- 
ly brought to view, having taken on the earthly 
body. 

See him at Simon's table, dining with other 
men as one of them, and like them in outward 
appearance : hear him at the same table, as a 
God, saying to the weeping sinner, " Thy sins 
are forgiven." The Jews murmur, and exclaim, 
" Who can forgive sins but God only ? " True, 
indeed ; and there, among them, was the eternal 
God the Father, united with his Son in the body. 
They, untaught by the Spirit, saw only the human 
person : he was to them but one like themselves. 
No wonder that when, all at once, he assumed the 
divine prerogative, and pronounced forgiveness 
on one whom they knew only as an outcast, they 
broke into murmurs. How little did Simon and 
his guests suspect with whom they were dining ! 
Yet the penitent sinner knew. At least she knew 



ADDITIONAL SCRIPTURE TESTIMONY. 1 59 

sufficiently to lead her to throw herself, a sup- 
pliant, at his feet ; and she received from him a 
benefaction as much greater than, the highest 
potentate of earth could confer, as the heavens 
are higher than the earth. The murmurings at 
Simon's table were no more surprising, however, 
than what is heard in our own day, when it is con- 
fidently asserted from some of our pulpits that this 
spiritual Healer was only a man. 

But let us follow this man (for such he was) a 
little farther. When crossing the lake, we find 
him in the stern of the boat, asleep, as any 
wearied man might be ; but as soon as the af- 
frighted disciples awake him, as God he speaks 
to the winds and waves, " Peace, be still ; " and 
immediately " there was a great calm." When 
he was with the sisters of Lazarus, and saw them 
and the Jews weeping, he also " wept " in sym- 
pathy ; but, at the grave, with the power of the 
Almighty, he said, " Lazarus, come forth." " And 
he that was dead came forth." 

In these and in most of his miracles, the God 
and the man are plainly distinguishable. His 
own explanation of all these mighty deeds we 
have so often given, that it seems superfluous, to 
repeat that he refers all this power to his union 
with the Father, of whom he speaks as dwelling in 
him, and doing the works. " I and my Father are 
one," — Father, let it be observed, not a divine 



l6o BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

Son. " The Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth 
the works." As if the Saviour said, " I as a man 
with you, and my Father the eternal God, are 
one ; and he through me doeth the works." 
" Therefore the Son of man hath power on 
earth to forgive sins." 

Now, why should we not conceive of God as 
dealing with men in this same way, through this 
same agency, his Son, in the ages before the in- 
carnation, as well as afterwards ? 

Has the reader ever marked the beautiful co- 
incidence between the narrative of the creation 
and the record of Christ's works ? " God said, 
Let there be light : and there was light." Christ 
said to the leper, " Be thou clean ; " and he was 
clean. The cleansing of the leper was as really 
God's act as the creation of light. " God said, 
Let the waters under the heaven be gathered 
together unto one place, and let the dry land ap- 
pear : and it was so." Christ said to the waters 
and the winds, " Peace, be still : " and it was so. 
God said, " Let the earth bring forth grass, the 
herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding 
fruit : and it was so." Christ said to the palsied 
man, " Arise, take up thy bed, and walk : " and 
he did so. " God said, Let there be lights in the 
firmament of heaven : . . . and it was so." Christ 
said to the corpse of the young man of Nain, " I 
say unto thee, Arise : and he that was dead sat 
up, and began to speak." 



ADDITIONAL SCRIPTURE TESTIMONY. l6l 

We might proceed thus with regard to most of 
Christ's divine works in the flesh ; for " he spake, 
and it was done : he commanded, and it stood 
fast." No one will deny that it as really required 
divine power to perform these works, as to per- 
form the acts of creation. 

If, now, we admit the force of Christ's own 
words, just as he spoke them and evidently in- 
tended they should be understood, and as they 
evidently were understood, at least by the apostles, 
— that he, the man Jesus, as to his soul, was " the 
beginning of the creation of God " (not " began 
the creation of God," as some would say), and that 
God the Father was " in him and he in God " 
" before the foundation of the world " (for if he 
was the beginning of God's creation, he must 
have existed before the world), — then all the 
representations in the Bible, from the first verse 
of Genesis to the last of Revelation, so far as 
they apply to God and Christ, their relations and 
works, are simplified, and made clear and compre- 
hensible. 

On the other hand, to maintain the doctrine of 
an eternally begotten Son, and an eternally per- 
sonified Spirit, veils the whole in impenetrable 
mystery, and, so far as concerns the Son, involves 
the subject (we say it with all due deference) in 
palpable inconsistency and self-contradiction. 

We add a few words on the doctrine of an eter- 
II 



1 62 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

nal Trinity in the Godhead. Mark, it is an eternal 
Trinity to which we object ; for, as already said, 
we believe and rejoice in the Christian Trinity, 
as instituted by Christ, and consummated in the 
blessed Comforter. But whence and through 
whom came the idea of an eternal Trinity ? 
When did the Church accept it as one of her 
essential doctrines ? So far as we can ascertain, 
it was not heard of in the first or second cen- 
tury. Yet there is no doubt that it has been 
firmly held for the last fifteen or sixteen hundred 
years. But does this establish its claim to be ac- 
cepted as a doctrine in Christ's Church ? It mat- 
ters not that the Ecumenical Council of Nice, and 
the creed of the pious and world-famed Atha- 
nasius, assert it as a fundamental doctrine of the 
Christian faith : we cannot accept it at their 
hands. With one bound we turn from them all, 
and would come directly to Him who spake as 
never man spake. We would sit down at his 
feet, and, Mary-like, learn our religious creed 
from his lips, and from the men whom he per- 
sonally instructed and inspired ; chiefly, however, 
from his own declarations. 

Allow us to quote a sentence or two from the 
Athanasian Creed, the main doctrines of which 
are commonly incorporated into Church Articles. 
" The Father is made of none, neither created 
nor begotten : the Son is of the Father, alone, 



ADDITIONAL SCRIPTURE TESTIMONY. 163 

neither made nor created, but begotten." Does 
not this very language show that the Son was 
derived from the Father ? If we understand 
words, a begotten being is necessarily a derived 
being. Yet it is said that both are alike eternal. 
Such logic we cannot comprehend. 

Look at this " mystical Trinity," as generally 
received, — three persons, Father, Son, and Holy 
Ghost, one in the Godhead from all eternity ; and 
this, as supposed by some, is what John meant in 
his first Epistle, when he says that they " bear 
record in heaven." Record of what ? The reply 
is, " Of the doctrine that these three are one in 
the Godhead." We do not so understand it. But 
suppose it true : in what way does it practically 
affect us ? Suppose Father, Son, and Holy Ghost 
to have been one in the Godhead millions of years 
ago, having so remained to our day : what appli- 
cation can be made of this to our spiritual benefit ? 
Could it appear to us anything other than mys- 
tery ? We might, indeed, try to contemplate it ; 
but can we make it practical ? No : we need a 
Trinity of which we can form a rational idea, and 
which we can apply to ourselves in the great 
matter of our salvation. Such a one we have 
from our blessed Redeemer ; and we rejoice in it, 
and praise him for it. 

It is maintained by some that the .union of 



164 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

Christ with the Father is simply that for which 
he prays in the words, " Neither pray I for these 
alone," — his immediate disciples, — "but for them 
also which shall believe on me through their 
word," — all later disciples, — "that they all may 
be one ; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, 
that they also may be one in us " (John xvii. 20, 
21). The next verse seems to refer to the future 
state : " And the glory which thou gavest me I 
have given them ; that they may be one, even as 
we are one." 

No doubt Jesus here prays for the oneness of 
his disciples ; i. e., that they might be like him 
and his Father in being united in a spirit of love 
and purity. And it was just what might have 
been expected from Jesus, when praying for his 
brother man. How could he have prayed for 
less, since he had enjoined on his disciples to 
be " perfect " as their " Father in heaven is per- 
fect " ? 

But this is by no means that union of which we 
have been treating, — that union of which Christ 
speaks when he says, " I and my Father are one." 
For, were it so, why do not all Christians have 
the power to work miracles, as he had, and those 
also whom he specially empowered ? 

There is a oneness of the believer with Christ, 
which is secured by the faith of the believer in 
him. This faith unites him to Christ, so that by 



ADDITIONAL SCRIPTURE TESTIMONY. 1 65 

the economy of grace he inherits the promises in 
him, and becomes, according to Paul (Rom. viii. 
17), an " heir of God, and joint heir with Christ." 
But, the ground of this union being faith, the be- 
liever must have an act in it. If he does not 
exercise faith there is no union. Not so in the 
union of Christ with the Father. The act of unit- 
ing was purely the act of the Father. The Son, 
a derived being, could have no more power to 
unite himself with the Father, or aid in thus 
uniting himself, than had his brother man whom 
they had placed on earth. This uniting was as 
exclusively the act of the Father as the beget- 
ting. In the nature of things it could not be 
otherwise. 

This union, also, of the Father and Son was 
such, that neither, within his sphere, would act 
without the concurrence of the other. Their 
wills were in perfect harmony. But often it was 
otherwise with the disciples in their relation to 
Christ. He had occasionally to reprove them. 
" Ye know not what ye ask," " Ye know not what 
spirit ye are of," were his mild rebukes. 

Again : as has been often remarked, whenever 
the apostles had occasion to refer to the power 
by which they wrought miracles, they always re- 
ferred to Jesus Christ as that power. Now, if 
their union with God was the same as Christ's, 
why did they not refer to God instead of Christ ? 



1 66 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

Why did not Peter say to the crippled man, " In 
the name of God, rise up and walk " ? We do not 
recollect a single instance in which they claimed 
divine power except through Christ. Nor do we 
find them claiming any union with Christ, or any 
power or authority from him, except through their 
faith in him. How very different the case with 
Christ ! Though disclaiming any power inde- 
pendently of the Father, yet, in his union with 
him, he claims all the power his Father pos- 
sesses. " All power is given unto me in heaven 
and in earth" (Matt, xxviii. 18). "All things 
that the Father hath are mine" (John xvi. 15). 
" All mine are thine, and thine are mine " (John 
xvii. 10). 

In all this, faith in God, or any other condition 
of this union, is not once mentioned. Could the 
apostles in any such manner claim their union 
with Christ ? 

In John xiii. 13, he says, "Ye call me Master 
and Lord : and ye say well ; for so I am." Does 
he pray for such a union of the disciples with him- 
self and the Father as would justify them in claim- 
ing these titles ? 

How would this agree with his instructions 
(Matt, xxiii. 8-10), where he warns them not to be 
called " rabbi," " master," or " father" ? 

In Luke vi. 46, he asks, "Why call ye me Lord, 
Lord, and do not the things which I say ? " He 



ADDITIONAL SCRIPTURE TESTIMONY. 167 

does not disapprove of their calling him Lord, but 
of their not obeying him as such. Did he pray 
that the disciples might have authority to be called 
Lord ? 

When Paul affirms (i Cor. xii. 3), "No man 
can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy 
Ghost," he implies that it is a divine influence 
which urges the soul to apply to him this title, 
— a pretty sure proof, we think, that he is Lord 
in a divine sense. Was it his prayer that his dis- 
ciples should hold a similar position ? 

Further : to worship any other being than God, 
we know, is idolatrous and impious. Now, it can- 
not be denied that Jesus, on several occasions 
while on earth, received worship, and that he ad- 
ministered no reproof to those who offered it. 

How different the conduct of the apostles ! 
When Cornelius fell down at the feet of Peter, 
and worshipped him, Peter said to him, " Stand 
up : I myself also am a man." When the people 
at Lystra were about to offer sacrifice to Paul 
and Barnabas, they rent their clothes, and ran in 
amongst the people, crying out and saying, " Sirs, 
why do ye these things ? " Thus, while Christ 
accepted worship as his right, the apostles re- 
jected it as an impious service. Can any one im- 
agine that Christ prayed that the disciples, like 
himself, might have such a union with the Father 
as should constitute a claim to receive worship ? 



l68 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

Besides, Christ does not say that his disciples 
already are, but prays that they may be, one at a 
future time, just as he prays that they may be 
with him and behold his glory, — referring clearly 
to future time : whereas the union of Christ with 
the Father was before the foundation of the world, 
and was such as to enable him, as we have seen, 
to take part in the creation. Paul writes to the 
Colossians that " he created all things that were 
created," and again to the Hebrews, that " by him 
God made the worlds." Did Christ pray that the 
disciples' union with him should be such as to give 
them power to create worlds ? 

We presume that all the apostles, after Pente- 
cost, recognized God in Christ. If they applied 
to Christ, they applied to God. If they called on 
Christ, they called on God. But we do not sup- 
pose that they generally understood in what way 
the man Jesus stood connected with God. We 
doubt whether Paul, even, who was more thorough- 
ly instructed in the principles of Christ's kingdom 
than most of his brethren, had a full understand- 
ing of the manner of this connection, though clear 
as to the fact " that God was in Christ, reconcil- 
ing the world unto himself." And they all un- 
doubtedly had a full conception of the reality of the 
union ; for the Comforter was to guide them into 
all truth ; and the reality, rather than the manner, 
of this union was the truth. God united a soul 



CONCLUDING REMARKS. 1 69 

with the body of Adam : but he did not explain 
the manner of the union ; and it has not yet been 
discovered. John, however, evidently had clear 
views, both of the fact and the manner of the 
union of which we are speaking. He refers to 
it as a personal union, by which the two became 
one ; hence the fullness and clearness of his writ- 
ings on the subject. No other sacred writer be- 
gins to exhibit so clear an understanding of it as 
does " the beloved disciple." 

To conclude this topic : The apostles claim 
their divine power, and Christians their eternal 
life, from Christ, and through faith in him. Jesus 
claims his power and authority directly from his 
Father ; not through faith in him, but through 
his perfect union with the Father. This is the 
distinct and essential difference between the 
union of Christ with his Father, and the union 
between the apostles and Christ, and believers 
with each other. 

Concluding Remarks. 

First, we will briefly re-state our views of the 
economy of God's operations relative to our world, 
namely, That He commenced and has continued 
all his works and manifestations by and through 
his first-begotten Son (as presented, pages 11-13, 
38-41) ; and that He never has, and never will, 



I70 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

change his mode of operation until " the Son also 
himself be subject unto Him that put all things 
under him." 

He manifested himself in different ways, on 
various occasions, and in different dispensations, 
as circumstances required ; but the same com- 
plex Being, Father and Son, acting together on 
the same principles as in the -creation, continues 
so to act, and will continue, to the end of time. 

Observe, now, the wisdom of this plan. A be- 
ing placed on earth, whose posterity is to spread 
over its surface ; and a being in heaven of the 
same species, so incorporated with the Deity as 
to possess all his powers and attributes. 

Thus the power and mercy of the Deity can 
flow through this sympathizing Son to his brother 
man on earth. 

This is what we understand to be God's plan or 
system on which all his doings have been trans- 
acted since the beginning of the creation. 

What God did before any creation of which we 
are informed, we do not know. But has it not 
been clearly shown that the doctrine of God's 
dealings, as set forth in this treatise, is unequiv- 
ocally taught in the New Testament ? while all 
that can be said in opposition to it is predicated 
on inference only. 

And now, why should this simple and compre- 
hensible economy of our Heavenly Father, which 



CONCLUDING REMARKS. 171 

must have been devised prior to the creation, be 
shrouded in such mystical theories as that God 
performed a part of his works by an eternal Son, 
and a part by a third person in the Godhead, 
" persons " that we cannot contemplate without 
involving a plurality of Gods ? 

It is easy for one to " look the book through," 
and then denounce it as " disproving the Deity 
of our blessed Lord," or " a mild system of Arian- 
ism," or " Orthodox Unitarianism," or " Sabellian- 
ism," or " Indwelling Scheme," &c. Now, with all 
these, or any other tenets, as such, we have noth- 
ing to do. Nor are we careful about " resem- 
blances," outside of the New Testament. 

We make no claim to the doctrines herein ad- 
vanced as our own. Our only claim is, that they 
agree with the teachings which God has revealed 
to us by his Son in the Scriptures. Our only 
aim has been to ascertain what Christ and his 
inspired apostles intended to teach ; and to record 
that, and that only. Nor do we write simply be- 
cause we believe in them, but because we think 
Christ actually taught them, or taught in accord- 
ance with them. 

Our belief is of no moment to others, but 
Christ's words are of vital importance to all. 

When he calls himself " the Beginning of the 
creation of God," and his apostles call him " the 
first-begotten of every creature," the " first-begot- 



172 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

ten," "God's first-begotten," &c., we believe them; 
and when we find the same sentiment so often 
and pointedly expressed in the New Testament, 
we dare not set our ingenuity at work to compel 
them to express something different from their 
intention. Nor can we accept what appear like 
such attempts from others. 

This whole economy is so signally brought out 
and verified by Jesus and his apostles, that it 
would seem as if he was aware that doubts, 
schemes, and erroneous systems would find their 
way into the Church, and hence took special 
pains to guard his people against such devices, 
by presenting the truth so often, and under so 
many different aspects, in as simple and plain lan- 
guage as words would admit. 

We have no fears in allowing the Scriptures 
herein quoted, and the doctrines drawn there- 
from, to be compared with any writings, ancient 
or modern, on the same passages, provided it be 
an unbiassed judgment which is brought to bear 
in the examination. 



It has long been a question with us, How it is 
that the doctrine of an eternal Son and of an eter- 
nal Trinity have been able to retain their place 
in Christ's Church through so many centuries ? 
The arguments and the so-called philosophy used 



CONCLUDING REMARKS. 1 73 

by devout and able men to prove them from the 
Bible, are to us matters of painful reflection. We 
have searched diligently, and, we think, thorough- 
ly, but have found no such proof in the sacred 
volume. There are many passages from which a 
reader may, if so inclined, infer them ; and, with 
these doctrines already fixed in his mind, as is the 
case with too many inquirers after truth, he might 
regard such passages as proofs, even though con- 
scious of not understanding the doctrines. The 
first verse of John's Gospel, on which we have 
commented, may be taken as an example. The 
common deductions from it, as we have seen, 
amount to just this : that because the Son was 
with God at the beginning of the creation, he 
must have been with him in all past eternity. 
All other arguments for the eternity of the Son, 
so far as we are acquainted with them, when ex- 
amined, leave nothing beyond the same inference. 
Is it singular that we cannot accept such reason- 
ing ? The trouble is, men are too prone to rely 
on their fellow-men in forming their conclusions 
respecting Christian doctrine. If a subject is a 
little obscure, the learned betake themselves to 
the fathers or similar sources, and others to the 
family commentary, instead of taking the inspired 
word as the grand source of instruction, and care- 
fully comparing its statements. Is not more time 
spent in searching for what human teachers in the 



174 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

Church have said on difficult subjects than in pon- 
dering the words of Christ and of his apostles with 
a child-like dependence on Christ's promise of the 
Comforter, as The Leader " into all truth " ? 

Men too often adopt a generally accepted doc- 
trine as an undoubted truth ; and, if they appeal 
to the Bible on the subject, it is rather to find 
the proof of the same, than to see whether it is 
true. How many persons are there who, without 
prepossessions, go directly to the Word of God 
to see whether the doctrine of an eternal Son is 
there taught ? Is it not generally assumed that 
this doctrine is true, and is taught in the Scrip- 
tures ? We believe, that, if one tithe of the time 
and labor spent to make the Bible prove the doc- 
trine of an eternal Son and an eternal Trinity 
had been earnestly given to come at the real 
teachings of Scripture on these points, the 
Church would, centuries ago, have been freed 
from the burden of these mysteries. 

We are not unaware that we may be charged 
with setting ourselves up as umpire concerning 
the teachings of the New Testament on these 
subjects. Nothing is farther from our design. 
Simply claiming to search the Scriptures for 
ourselves, we only ask others to do the same, 
and to follow what there they find. 

The question is agitated, we understand, whether 
there must not have been a capacity of suffering 



CONCLUDING REMARKS. 1 75 

in the divine nature of the Son ; as otherwise the 
penalty of the divine law could not be fully ex- 
ecuted, and several passages of Scripture would 
not find an adequate meaning, and so a com- 
plete and acceptable atonement fail to be made. 
We are not quite sure that this is the exact state- 
ment of the subject, but think it substantially 
correct. 

We recoil at once from any such idea. What ! 
God suffer the penalty of his own law, which he 
gave to a being of his own creating, and wholly 
for the benefit of that being ? Why give a law 
at all, if, when broken, he would bear the penalty ? 
Would he not thus encourage further transgres- 
sion ? 

Suppose there were in the divine nature such a 
capacity for suffering, — an idea wholly inadmissi- 
ble, and at war with all we know of God, — sup- 
pose, however, that it could be and were so, would 
his suffering fulfil the divine law given to man, 
" In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely 
die " ? Could that edict be changed to say, " In 
the day thou eatest thereof I will die for you " ? 
No : God must change before one jot or tittle of 
his law can fail. It was given to man for him to 
keep : if he broke it, man must fulfil it ; and to 
fulfil it is either to obey it wholly and perfectly, 
or to bear its penalty. 

It will be seen how exactly our view of the 



176 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

nature and character of the . Son meets the afore- 
said inquiry. We see a Son, taken into union 
with the Father before the man who received and 
broke the law was created ; and this Son, of the 
same nature as the disobedient man, is the one 
only being who could put himself in a situation 
to bear the penalty of the law, and redeem his 
brother. There is no need of assuming in the 
divine nature a latent capacity to endure suffer- 
ing, or of discussing the question as to the reality 
of such a capacity. In the Son of God, who came 
down from heaven for this very purpose, we have 
one exactly fitted to meet the exigency ; and he 
did meet it. 

We close with a few words to our fellow-Chris- 
tians. 

Dear Brethren in Christ, — in this form of 
address we include all who, by the effectual 
grace of the triune Comforter, have been born 
into the kingdom of God, and thus made joint 
heirs with the Lord Jesus Christ, without refer- 
ence to any distinctions of name or sect, — in the 
name of our common Redeemer we ask and be- 
seech you, in judging of what we have- now writ- 
ten, to lay aside all creeds and dogmas that can- 
not be supported by the teachings of the adored 
Saviour, or of his inspired apostles. Take the 
simple Word, as it is given us, with the explana- 



CONCLUDING REMARKS. 1 77 

tions which are found in itself, and seek the 
enlightening aid of that Comforter who is the 
promised Leader into all truth. 

Lean not on the authority or ability of men ; 
but, as far as possible, let scripture explain scrip- 
ture. We think we have learned that the sacred 
writings are their own best commentators. 

If, on full search and comparison, the reader finds 
the views, herein set forth, do not accord with the 
instructions of our common Lord and Master, let 
him cast them aside. To follow Christ is the 
only path of safety. But, if he finds them to 
agree with the Inspired Oracles, on himself rests 
the responsibility as to their acceptance. 
12 



APPENDIX. 



In the foregoing treatise there are allusions to 
the doctrine of the Atonement. The writer has 
nowhere seen explanations of this subject which 
have fully met his views. 

Suppose that Christ, in his true character as 
human and divine, had been waylaid by an assas- 
sin and murdered ; would his death in that case 
have made an atonement for sin ? 

Or, had he been taken with a fever, such as 
was common at certain seasons in that country, 
and died under it ; would then his death have made 
an atonement ? 

Again : if by an accident, as by drowning or 
otherwise, he had lost his life, would this have 
made an atonement ? The answer, in all these 
cases, we presume, would be, No. 

Now, we well understand that in the economy 
of grace, under the divine government, these sup- 
posed cases could not happen. But they may, 
perhaps, serve the purpose of illustration. 

179 



l8o BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

Suppose, once more, that, through envy, Christ 
had been seized by a lawless mob, and carried 
before the authorities of the land. Bribed wit- 
nesses testify that he committed some capital 
offence, and thus conviction is obtained against 
him : he is sentenced and executed. Would his 
death in that case avail as an atonement for the 
sins of mankind ? Should the answer be, "Yes," 
the inquiry arises, What is the difference, in the 
nature or bearing of the loss of his life in this 
case, and in that where it is taken by an assas- 
sin ? In both instances his life is taken by malice. 
But should the answer be " No," then it may be 
asked, What difference is there, as to the nature 
and bearing of the case, between the supposed 
transaction and that which actually took place in 
the apprehension, conviction, and crucifixion of 
Jesus ? In both, the acts would be legal accord- 
ing to the laws of the land, but unjust because 
the conviction was on false evidence. Instances 
often occur now in our courts, where the evidence 
is such as to convict a party of guilt when per- 
fectly innocent. The particulars, as published in 
the papers of the day, are within the memory of 
many among us, concerning a person in a neigh- 
boring State, who was tried for murder, convicted, 
and sentenced; While awaiting the day of his 
execution, to the surprise of all, the supposed 
murdered man appeared, alive and well. Having 



APPENDIX. l8l 

heard, in another State, of the facts in the case, he 
immediately hastened to the relief of his former 
neighbor. Now, this man had been legally con- 
victed, and would have been legally, yet most un- 
justly, executed, because the evidence being false 
on which he was proved guilty. 

Now, in the nature, intent, and bearing of the 
trial of Christ, the evidence being perverted by 
the Jewish Council, and false at Pilate's judgment 
seat, is not the case quite similar to that just men- 
tioned ? The evidence was false in both cases ; 
the convictions, though legal, were unjust, be- 
cause founded on false evidence. Could the fact 
of Christ's submitting to such conviction and ex- 
ecution be regarded as answering the demands of 
the divine moral law ? 

After the subjugation of the Jews by the Ro- 
mans, the authority of the Jewish Sanhedrim was 
recognized in all cases except capital offences, 
which must be carried to the Roman authorities. 
Blasphemy, according to the Mosaic moral law, 
was a capital offence, punishable by the criminal 
being stoned. (Lev. xxiv. 16.) Jesus, therefore, 
having been condemned for blasphemy, would 
have been stoned, had the Jews possessed the 
power. In that case, certain prophecies would not 
have been fulfilled ; as, "They shall look on him 
whom they pierced" and also, " They pierced my 
hands and my feet" 



1 82 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

The Council assumed that if a man claimed to 
be God, or made himself equal with God, it was 
blasphemy. When, therefore, Jesus, on oath, ad- 
mitted that he was " the Christ, the Son of God " 
(a truth which has been the joy and rejoicing of 
millions), they, taking him to be but man, pro- 
nounced it blasphemy, and consequently passed 
upon him the sentence of death. Having no 
power to execute the sentence, however, they take 
him to the Roman authorities, and charge him 
with a political crime, that of treasonable utter- 
ance against the government, and by mob accla- 
mation, and an indirect threat to accuse Pilate as 
disloyal to Caesar, they obtain the sentence for 
crucifixion. Although this sentence was ostensi- 
bly legal, yet a more unjust and malicious act, 
especially on the part of the Jews, history does 
not record. 

Now, what bearing could there be in such an 
unrighteous, earthly transaction towards answer- 
ing the demands of a divine moral law ? How 
could the effect be a fulfilling of the law of God, 
any more than if the life of Christ had been taken 
by accident or assassination ? 

It is evident from the teachings of Christ and 
the apostles, that the original sentence, "Thou 
shalt surely die," applied to the whole man. It 
did not refer simply to the separation of soul and 
body, and the extinction of animal life, but in- 



APPENDIX. 183 

eluded the state or condition of soul and body 
both before and after their separation. 

The body was to return to the ground whence 
it was taken ; the soul, which can never decay, or, 
literally, die, was to pass into a state or condition 
which would be the natural result of a non-com- 
pliance with the directions given to our first par- 
ents. This condition, being a moral one, cannot 
be presented to the senses as can that of the body. 
It is set before us, by Jesus and the apostles, by 
emblems and figures ; earthly things and states 
being employed to represent the moral state. 
Thus it is called a state of bondage. " He that 
committeth sin," said Jesus, " is the servant (or 
bondman) of sin." No one doubts that Eve and 
her companion committed sin in disregarding 
their Creator's directions. In so doing they came 
into bondage, as the consequence of sin. 

It is also called a state of condemnation. Paul 
says (Rom. v. 10), " As by one " (all agree he 
here refers to Adam), "judgment came upon all 
men to condemnation," &c. 

And also as a state of death, in contrast with 
another state called eternal life. Paul says (Rom. 
vi. 23), " The wages of sin is death ;" that is, the 
result of sin is death. 

Many other figures and emblems are used in 
Scripture to represent this state of the soul under 
the effect of disobedience, which need not be here 
mentioned. 



184 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

The first parents, therefore, having sinned, 
found themselves in this state of spiritual bond- 
age, including alienation from their Father; and 
this at once manifested itself in their disinclina- 
tion to hear or see him. On hearing his voice, 
they fled, and hid themselves, which plainly 
showed their estrangement from him. 

Now, it is an unquestionable fact that this state 
of the soul towards God is lineally and legitimately 
transmitted to the posterity of Adam down to the 
latest generation. This view is unacceptable, we 
are aware, to very many ; but we see not how, le- 
gally or logically, it can be otherwise. Nature 
and observation on every hand attest the fact of 
a universally inherited opposition to God. " Like- 
ness begets likeness the world over." 

But it is not now our intention to enter into 
argument on this point. We are to consider, 
rather, the provision which our heavenly Father, 
in connection with his Son, has made, that man 
may be redeemed from this bondage or condem- 
nation. It is the general understanding of those 
who call themselves orthodox, that redemption is 
in Christ. If the question be asked, How is re- 
demption in him ? it is commonly answered, "He 
died to redeem us. By his death, therefore, we 
are redeemed through repentance and faith in 
him." These general affirmations unquestiona- 
bly express Scripture doctrine. Paul is very clear 



APPENDIX. 185 

and decisive in declaring the same. Peter and 
John give similar testimony, the teaching of the 
Apocalypse being to the same effect. 

But as the divine edict is of a moral as well as 
physical character, it becomes needful that its 
fulfilment be likewise of a twofold character ; and 
as the moral character of the first pair had be- 
come dissimilar to that of their Creator, and was 
assimilated to an adverse being and government, 
they had neither the inclination nor power to 
comply with the divine directions, or to redeem 
themselves and return to their former allegiance. 
What was their inclination has been already no- 
ticed : the power to reinstate themselves they had 
lost, like all criminals, who, from the fact of their 
having broken the law, at once lose the power to 
repair the breach in any other way than to endure 
what the law requires. 

We will now pass to consider in what way Je- 
sus not only fulfilled the divine mandate exter- 
nally, but also in all its internal moral demands. 

It will be remembered that Jesus, on a certain 
occasion, speaking of his life, said, " No man 
taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. 
I have power to lay it down, and I have power to 
take it again." (John x. 18.) Here Jesus asserts 
that no man took his life ; and if we examine the 
circumstances attending his death, we shall see 
that this declaration was literally true. 



1 86 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

On that memorable evening, the fifteenth of 
Nisan, after Jesus, with the eleven, had withdrawn, 
probably late, to the garden, all around was quiet 
under nature's repose. The distant rumbling of 
the city on the other side of Cedron had died 
away. And now an extraordinary oppression 
came upon the soul of Jesus, to such a degree 
that he felt the need of special assistance from his 
Father. Taking the three disciples whom he 
usually selected as witnesses of important events, 
he led them a little distance from the rest, and 
bade them watch while he went a little farther 
and prayed. He then went forward, fell on his 
face, and cried, " My Father, if it be possible, let 
this cup pass from me : nevertheless, not as I will, 
but as thou wilt." But no answer is returned ; 
there is no mitigation of the pressure, which in- 
creases until his agony is such that sweat rolls 
down his face ; this mental distress increases 
until blood issues through the pores of the skin, 
and, mingling with the sweat, falls to the ground. 
" My soul," he exclaims, " is exceeding sorrow- 
ful, even unto death." 

Now, what, we ask, was the cause of this ex- 
treme agony of the Saviour's soul ? 

Some would reply, that it was experienced in 
view of the terrible suffering of the approaching 
crucifixion. But does history speak of another 
instance of such suffering in view only of death, 



APPENDIX. 187 

however terrible in its nature ? Multitudes of his 
followers, we well know, have met death in the 
most fearful forms with composure, and even with 
rejoicing. Are we to suppose that He who could 
support countless numbers of the faithful in suf- 
fering all kinds of torture and of cruel deaths 
that the emissaries of Satan could devise, should 
himself be under such mental anguish as to cause 
the blood to ooze from his flesh simply at the 
prospect of passing through the pains of the cross 
to his native home and glory ? Such an idea is 
inadmissible ! 

Was not this experience of anguish that " bap- 
tism " of which he spoke, " I have a baptism to 
be baptized with, and how am I straitened until it 
be accomplished ! " What baptism could he have 
referred to in these words but that terrible scene 
through which he passed in the garden and on 
the cross ? 

Mark his words. " My soul is exceeding sor- 
rowful, even unto death ; " that is, at the point of 
death, or just ready to die. The bloody sweat 
shows the depth of that agony, and, doubtless, 
had it been a little more severe, or of longer 
continuance, it must have caused his death. But 
just at this point an angel came from " heaven 
strengthening him," lest he should sink and die 
on the spot under the heavy burden then pressing 
upon his soul. 



l88 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

How wonderful and timely, we would remark, 
was this interposition ! It brings to mind the 
instance of Abraham, who was about to offer up 
Isaac, his son, at the divine command. At the 
moment when his arm was lifted for the fatal 
stroke, an angel appears and stays the deed, and 
the life of his beloved son is spared. So, on this 
occasion, with Jesus ; and who can peruse the 
account without emotions of gratitude to the all- 
wise Ruler of events ? Suppose the angel had 
not appeared, and that Jesus had there expired ; 
we should not, indeed, dare to say that such a 
death of Christ would not have availed for an 
atonement. But what a chasm there would have 
been in the providential history of Christ's death, 
how incomplete in many of its very important 
parts ! What would become of those prophecies 
of Scripture, those sacrifices, yea, the very decla- 
rations of Christ himself, which pointed to a dif- 
ferent manner of death ? In that case, too, what 
evidence would have been given as to the cause 
of his death? whereas, in the actual circumstances 
of it there was, we think, such evidence ; as will 
presently be considered. 

And, further, ground would have been given to 
the Jews for their assertion that Jesus was a de- 
ceiver ; they could have said that God had smit- 
ten him on account of his deception ; and who 
could have answered them ? Furthermore, many 



APPENDIX. 189 

proofs of his divinity would have been wanting. 
Nor could any of those events have occurred, 
such as his betrayal, arrest, trial, conviction, and 
execution, with the attendant circumstances ; all 
so full of interest, and interwoven, as now they 
are, in the development of the scheme of salva- 
tion. Jesus himself, having declared the manner 
of his death, and many of the particulars attend- 
ing it, would have been proved a false prophet. 
All must see the vast importance of his being 
supernaturally sustained in his conflict in the 
garden. 

Now let us look at those circumstances which 
were actually and immediately connected with the 
death of our Saviour. Jesus was transfixed to the 
cross at nine o'clock in the morning. From 
twelve o'clock darkness was spread over the 
earth till three in the afternoon. At that momen- 
tous and memorable hour the pressure upon the 
soul of Jesus was such as to force from his lips 
that heart-rending appeal to his Father, " My 
God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me ? " and 
commending his spirit into the hands of his Fa- 
ther, uttered the weighty exclamation, " It is fin- 
ished'; " and gave up the ghost. 

It will be observed that Jesus had been on the 
cross six hours only when he died. Jahn (Bib. 
Archaeology, p. 325) states that criminals, when 
crucified, commonly live until the third day, and 



190 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

sometimes to the seventh. Another writer re- 
marks, " The degree of anguish is gradual in the 
increase. The person would languish gradually 
from excessive pains, exposure, and want of nour- 
ishment ; the vitality of the system gently fail- 
ing. The voice becomes husky, and eventually 
fails a longer or shorter time before life is ex- 
tinct." 

Compare with this the circumstances of Je- 
sus' death. Matthew, Mark, and Luke relate that 
he cried with a loud voice, and gave up the ghost. 
John says, " When he had received the vinegar, 
he said, It is finished : and he bowed his head, 
and gave up the ghost." As the other evangel- 
ists relate that he cried with a loud voice, it is 
more than probable the words " It is finished " 
were the words thus spoken. Two facts unite, 
then, to show that something beside the pains of 
crucifixion caused the death of Jesus. First, 
that his death was premature, taking place in six 
hours. Second, that he had full strength when he 
gave up the ghost. Mark says (xv. 39), " When 
the centurion, which stood over against him, saw 
that he so cried out and gave up the ghost, he 
said, Truly this was the son of God ! " The 
centurion noted the facts, as being uncommon in 
such executions, and Matthew observes, " He and 
they who were with him feared greatly." 

Again : when Joseph sought from Pilate the 



APPENDIX. 191 

body of jesus, Pilate " marvelled if he were already 
dead," and refused to deliver up the body until he 
was assured from the centurion that he had been 
a while dead ; which gives additional evidence that 
the death was premature. 

In Christ's time, the Jews had many privileges 
relating especially to their religious services and 
divine law. One was in regard to a criminal Jew 
who had been hanged. Deut xxi. 23 : "His body 
shall not remain all night upon the tree." In 
deference to this law, the Jews, when one of 
their countrymen had been crucified, were allowed 
to hasten death, that the body might be taken 
down before sunset. Among the means used 
was the breaking of the person's bones against 
the cross with an instrument ; first below the 
elbows and knees, and then above them. If this 
did not succeed, the body was pierced with a 
spear. 

The crucifixion of our Lord was on Friday. 
The next day was the Jewish Sabbath, commen- 
cing at sunset, or six o'clock, P. M., that same 
day ; and that being the Passover Sabbath, it was, 
as John says, " an high day." 

Towards the latter part of the afternoon (for Je- 
sus died at three o'clock), the Jews applied to the 
governor that the usual means might be used to 
effect the death of the criminals, that the bodies 
might not remain on the cross on their Sabbath. 



192 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

The request was granted. The guard, being 
arranged around the criminals, come first to the 
two outer ones, and these being alive, they broke 
their limbs. Then coming to Jesus, in the cen- 
tre, they find him dead. There was no neces- 
sity, then, that his limbs should be broken ; but to 
make sure of the fact that he was dead, the spear- 
man pierced his body ; and there being no action, 
it was evident that he was dead. Thus additional 
confirmation is given of the premature death of 
Christ. 

Now, looking at all these facts attending the 
death of Jesus, the conclusion seems irresistible 
that his actual death was not the result of the 
crucifixion. 

Both Jews and Romans intended his death, and 
did what must eventually have caused it ; but the 
actual executioner seems to have been something 
other than the cross. This agrees with Jesus' 
declaration that no man took his life. 

What, then, did take that life ? True, Jesus 
said, " The Son of Man should be delivered into 
the hands of men, and they should kill him? 
Peter charges the Jews with having " killed the 
Prince of Life." Virtually, the deed was theirs, 
though the Romans performed the act ; and both 
Jews and Romans believed they had accomplished 
their purpose. 

We have noticed the mental anguish of Christ 



APPENDIX. 193 

in the garden, when there was no outward cause 
to produce it ; we have also viewed him on the 
cross, under such suffering as to call forth that 
affecting cry, " My God, my God," &c. This ap- 
peal seems to have been a continuation of the 
supplications in Gethsemane, and indicates that 
the suffering on the cross was, in its most essen- 
tial part, of a similar character to that borne in 
the garden. In the one instance the language of 
the sufferer was, " If it be possible let this cup 
pass from me : but not as I will, but as thou 
wilt ; " and as the burden grew insupportable, he 
was strengthened by a celestial hand. But now, 
on the cross, the cup returns to the Saviour with 
all the oppressiveness experienced in the garden. 
If a person be under a broken law (not now 
considering by what means he comes into that 
position, which will be an after consideration), 
and the demand of that law for that violation be 
death, then the person must endure that which 
includes death. The law cannot be fulfilled in 
anything less. If the law be external, recognizing 
the outward actions of men, then the requirement 
will be external. If spiritual, that is, the non- 
conformity being to a spiritual law, then the re- 
quirement is spiritual, applying to the inward 
man. Now, this was precisely the case with Je- 
sus. He was under both this spiritual and exter- 
nal divine demand. To fulfil it he must receive 
13 



194 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

mental suffering to such an extent as to take ani- 
mal life. This, we understand, was the suffering 
of Jesus, both in the garden and on the cross. In 
the garden, its intensity was sufficiently shown 
by the strongest word being used that the lan- 
guage contains — " being in an agony!' " Is it 
nothing to you, all ye that pass by ? behold, and 
see if there be any sorrow like unto my sorrow, 
which is done unto me, wherewith the Lord hath 
afflicted me in the day of his fierce anger." (Lam. 
i. 12.) His life was saved in the garden, but on 
the cross there could be no such salvation. 

To ask now that the cup might be removed 
would be unavailing. No angel may now be sent 
to strengthen him. The hour has come when he 
must drink to the dregs the cup which his Father 
had given him. There can be no mitigation now, 
since for this cause came he to this hour. Even 
his Father must leave him to " tread the wine- 
press alone." Already had he been cast out of 
the church militant, for when the council pro- 
nounced him "guilty of death," that sentence 
excluded him from the Mosaic church militant. 
According to the precepts of that church, the 
only visible and divinely recognized church then 
on earth, — it will be remembered the Christian 
church was now in embryo,— he at once came into 
the situation of an outlaw, deemed fit only to be 
stoned to death, as a warning against blasphemy. 



APPENDIX. 195 

Nor was this all. No, nor was all we have said 
of his sufferings equal, in our view, to what we 
are now about to state. In his present situ- 
ation, he must not only be cut off from mem- 
bership with the church militant, but as a man, 
he must, for the time being, be cast off from the 
kingdom of God ! ! For such an execution in 
the kingdom of God would defile it. 

" Never," exclaims the lover of Jesus, "never 
can I admit that the spotless Lamb of God could 
be cast out of God's spiritual kingdom ! " Be 
not startled, dear reader ; remember that what- 
ever Jesus did, and whatever was done to him, 
while here on earth, will redound to his everlast- 
ing glory, and the highest good of Zion. 

Paul says (Gal. iv. 4, 5), " God sent forth his 
Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to 
redeem them that are under the law." Now, this 
Son must, in some sense, be in a similar state 
with those whom he came forth to redeem ; and 
he could not be in the same state with them as 
a transgressor, for he never transgressed. Was 
not this that lineal spiritual bondage, which he, in 
common with them, inherited by having been 
" born of a woman " ? 

Jesus, therefore, was not under the law as a 
transgressor, but by being born of a woman, 
" born under the law ; " and how does this fact 
bring him under the law unless the woman was 



I96 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

under the law ? and how would this woman be 
under the law, if she had not been born of a 
woman also under the law ? and so on from gen- 
eration to generation, back to the first woman ? 
and when was the time, from Eve down to the 
birth of Christ, when the woman was redeemed 
from her spiritual bondage ? This leads us to 
speak more particularly on the lineal descent 
of bondage ; and it must be kept in view that 
it is essentially spiritual bondage of which we 
treat. This state is represented by different 
terms both in Scripture and various writers. It 
is called condemnation, spiritual death, penalty 
of the law, &c. It is a state of the soul inde- 
scribable except by emblem. We will use the 
expression " bondage " as virtually including the 
others. 

By the divine economy, the descent of bondage 
was established in the mother, and not in the fa- 
ther. Why this was so we cannot explain, unless 
in this arrangement there was a view to the future 
Messiah. But so it was. There was no descent 
of bondage from the father. 

The bond father could have a free child of a 
free woman, but a free father could not have a 
free child of a bond woman. This was evidently 
the divine order. (See Ex. xxi. 1-4.) And so far 
as we know, this has been the practice of all na- 
tions since. The owner of the bond woman was 



APPENDIX. 197 

the owner of her children, whoever might be their 
father. If a wife had a bond maid, and that maid 
had children, the wife had unlimited control over 
them, above that of her husband, even if he was 
their father. 

This seems singular, especially in the patriar- 
chal age, when the wife was under such subjecion 
and control of the husband, as shown in the case of 
the wife's vow. (See Num. xxx. 6-13, inclusive.) 

The cases of Abraham and Jacob exemplify this, 
especially that of Abraham. The children of 
their bond maids were the children of their free 
wives : they owned them, and could surrender 
them to their husbands, or do what else they 
pleased with them, irrespective of their husbands' 
authority. In Jacob's case, from the tenor of the 
narrative, it is probable Leah and Rachel did not 
use their power contrary to Jacob's will ; or they 
gave those children to him at their birth as their 
own children. But it was not so with Sarah and 
Abraham. She retained her authority over her 
bond maid and her child, even above her husband, 
although he was father of the child. But this son, 
who had been dandled upon the knees of an affec- 
tionate and loving father, at Sarah's command 
must be torn from his bosom, and from a home of 
plenty ; must be sent away, he knew not whither, 
with sustenance only for a few days. And why 
must he be thus abandoned ? Only because he 



I98 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

was born of a bond woman. Even the pious and 
affectionate father could not protect him from the 
orders of his owner. However unnatural, cruel, 
and unjust this appears to us, the act was ap- 
proved by God, and the principle afterwards 
recorded in the divine statutes. In this case of 
Ishmael and Isaac, we see not only an emblem, 
but also an explanation of the peculiar position 
of Jesus in the great plan of the atonement, and 
they teach us how he came into that position. 
According to this economy, — and we must see it is 
God's, and not man's, — Eve being in spiritual 
bondage for disobedience, her children must be in 
the same state ; and they could not change their 
condition, however many generations might fol- 
low : therefore, in the Son's coming into the world 
by being born of one of the daughters of Eve, he 
becomes a bond man under the law. This, it will 
be seen, accords with Paul's words, " Made of a 
woman, made under the law." As soon as he is 
born of a woman he becomes one of the family of 
man, a child of Eve, under the law ; and the law 
now requires of him a complete fulfilment, not 
only in all the outward acts of life, but in the in- 
tentions of the heart. This he must do as one of 
the human race. 

Now, had he in any one instance violated the 
law, in thought, word, or deed, it would have been 
ratifying his original parents' transgression, and 



APPENDIX. I99 

consequently have placed himself precisely in their 
position. He would be, as they were, helpless as 
to making any restitution. But he kept the law, 
not only in outward life, but in spirit. " My meat 
is to do the will of him that sent me," said the 
blessed Jesus. All this was his duty to do as a 
man ; this purchased nothing ; it only enabled 
him to retain his place in his Father's love. It 
could have no effect on his inherited bondage. 
He was a bond man still, and his freedom could 
only be obtained by the price of that freedom, 
and the edict determines that price. " In the day 
thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die!' Now, 
call this announcement what you will, penalty of 
the law, punishment, or whatever else (it is the 
result of transgression, and arises from a con- 
sciousness of being cast off by God, the intensity 
of the affliction being in proportion to the clear- 
ness of that consciousness, — Jesus did not say, 
" My God, my God, why art thou punishing me ? " 
but, " Why hast thou forsaken me ? "), it must be 
of such severity as to cause death ; nothing short 
of this could fulfil that divine announcement ; 
and there had not been a human being on earth, 
from Adam down to the advent of Jesus, who 
could redeem himself. All, having been born un- 
der the same edict, had lost the power of recov- 
ery. Now, let us look at the capacity in which 
Jesus stood, and his adaptedness to meet this 



200 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

emergency. We will look at this whole transac- 
tion in a business-like view, without reference now 
to the eternal government of the All-wise Deity. 
As a perfect human being, Jesus was with his 
Father before the foundation of the world. By 
and through him his Father performed all won- 
ders of creation ; through him the directions and 
the warning were given to his brother man. Af- 
ter the transgression, before the interview in the 
garden, it was understood between him and his 
Father that he should go down and be a descend- 
ant of his brother and his companion Eve, and, 
as such, would take upon himself the result of 
their transgression ; thus opening a way for their 
return to his and his Father's affections. But it 
must be left to his brothers volition whether he 
would return or not. He used his own will to go 
away, and he must use it to return. This way for 
his return was preached to him, as some suppose, 
at the first interview after the transgression in the 
garden, in the slaying and sacrificing of animals, 
and in the skins clothing their bodies. Thus was 
emblematized that through the death of the com- 
ing Messiah, their naked souls could be clothed 
with robes made white by being washed in the 
blood of the Lamb. 

Thus the Creator continues his dealings with 
the descendants of the first mother until the full- 
ness of time had come. And now a body is to 



APPENDIX. 201 

be prepared for the reception of this Son ; and 
as it was necessary that the animal life and body 
should be holy, he must be begotten by the Holy 
Ghost : thus " that holy thing " that should be born 
of her might truly be called " the Son of God." 

In a word, when on the cross Jesus exclaimed, 
" It is finished," and bowed his head, and gave 
up the ghost," the fulfilment of the law was com- 
plete. That great event had come to which all 
sacrifices had pointed, from that of Abel down to 
the last paschal lamb that Jesus and his disciples 
ate in the furnished upper room. 

He had now fulfilled the law in all its claims 
on him as a man and descendant of Eve. That 
soul and body which were joined in Bethlehem 
death has separated. They had kept the law to- 
gether, but they must be separated on its com- 
pletion, or there is no death ; and if no death, 
then no fulfilment of the law. The soul, having 
always acted with his Father, could now soar 
away with attendant angels to the celestial Para- 
dise ; as Christ said to his companion on the 
cross, "To-day shalt thou be with me in Para- 
dise." The body lies a helpless form in Joseph's 
tomb, naturally as much a subject of decay as that 
of Lazarus. Behold the two then thus separated ; 
the soul in its native Paradise, the body in the 
tomb. 

Let the reader here observe, just at this point 



202 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

comes in the sublime and necessary union of this 
human soul, or son, with his Father, in order to 
complete the scheme of redemption. Of himself 
alone he could do nothing, as he said. As a man 
he could no more return to earth and reunite him- 
self to the body than could any other man ; but 
being one with his Father, he had " all power in 
heaven and in earth." He could thus re-enter 
and restore that body to life, after it had lain in 
the tomb until the third day, as easily as he could 
resuscitate Lazarus when he had been dead four 
days. 

On one occasion, speaking to his disciples of 
his death, he says, " They shall crucify him, and 
the third day he shall rise again," implying that 
in his Father he had power to rise. At another 
time he says, " He must be killed, and raised up 
again the third day," implying that he would be 
raised by a supernatural power ; and the apostles 
almost invariably ascribe his resurrection to God. 
Here we have similar language to that used in 
reference to the creation, where it is said, " God 
created," and again, " Christ created ; " and here, 
" God raised him," and " Christ arose," showing 
that as they were one in the creation, so were 
they one in the resurrection. 

The soul of Christ then returned to the world, 
accompanied by an angel who rolled away the 
stone, and sat upon it. He re-entered the body 



APPENDIX. 203 

gave it life, and there in the tomb transformed it 
into a spiritual body. Of course this spiritual 
body could not retain the linen clothes and nap- 
kin, any more than Elijah's body could retain the 
mantle when that body was transformed to pre- 
pare it for heaven. In our view, Jesus arose with 
a spiritual body ; at his pleasure he 'reassumed 
and laid aside the natural body. When the ma- 
terial body was assumed, it was in all respects the 
same as it was at the crucifixion, and consequently 
visible to the natural sight. When in a spiritual 
state it was invisible. This accounts for his mar- 
vellous appearance on several occasions, and as 
marvellous disappearance. We see no more diffi- 
culty in this view concerning the resurrection 
body of Jesus, than that angels were occasionally 
clothed with assumed material bodies. The angel 
who rolled away the stone certainly had a mate- 
rial body, or the women and keepers could not 
have seen him. Those who ate with Abraham 
surely had material bodies, for they were seen, 
and acted like men ; and could not Jesus reassume 
his former body as easily as to clothe these 
spirit angels with new material bodies ? Now, as 
that body had never been used in transgression, 
and as Jesus had purchased a deliverance from 
the inherited bondage, the soul, by divine power, 
having reinstated and reanimated the body, this 
with the soul now stood free. Body and soul 



204 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

could soar away to heaven, and Jesus could sit 
down at the right hand of God where Stephen 
afterwards beheld him.. 

Let us now consider what a personage it re- 
quired to fulfil that broken injunction in Eden. 

First, he must be a being under the law. 
Then he must be of the family of man ; v for to no 
other race of beings were the directions given. 
Also, he must suffer the penalty announced, or 
the demand would not be fulfilled. Again, it 
must be one on whom the consequence of the of- 
fence legally rests. Then he must on no occa- 
sion have acted contrary to the divine will ; one 
such act would incapacitate him for such a posi- 
tion. Once more : he must possess divine power 
to return to earth, reanimate the body, transform 
it into a spiritual body, and as one who is abso- 
lutely a perfectly free person, return to his native 
heaven. 

Where, now, can the personage be found in 
whom all these qualifications are combined ? 
Nowhere in heaven or earth, save in Jestis of 
Nazareth, the Son of man and the Son of God. 
" There is no name given under heaven among 
men whereby we must be saved " but the name 
of Jesus. Let infinite wisdom and mercy be 
adored ! Let the reader now particularly mark : 
as this very Son who fulfilled the law's demand 
by suffering on the cross was the first human 



APPENDIX. 205 

being who ever existed, and was so united to or 
incorporated with his Father as to make the two 
One, so that they were together in the creation, 
in which the forming of man was the crowning 
act, the man on earth was thus his creature, or 
son, as well as his brother. He, therefore, was 
properly the Representative of this brother and 
his posterity. Further, as this God-man in his 
capacity as Creator, divine and human Governor, 
having come under the law by " being born of a 
woman," the demands of that law were laid upon 
him. And who could release him ? The law 
could not be abrogated. " But," says one, " the 
mercy of God surely is sufficient to pardon his 
own Son." Nay, we reply, for in that case he 
must annul the edict made in the garden ; but 
" not one jot or tittle of the law shall fail till all 
be fulfilled." Christ having met this demand, 
deliverance becomes applicable to all the descend- 
ants of that erring pair who have never volunta- 
rily sinned. For this cause came he into the 
world, not for himself, but to save the lost. No 
necessity existed of his coming under the penalty 
on his own account ; he was happy with his Fa- 
ther. Literally he was made under the law that 
he might redeem those under the law. 

The infant child is indeed born into the world 
in a state of spiritual bondage, since born of a 
bond mother, as also Jesus came into bondage. 



206 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

But the soul of Jesus having come from heaven 
in union with his Father, God being also the 
Father of his body, he could not be an unholy 
thing, like the children of both alienated and bond 
parents. Nothing whatever of an evil nature 
could attach itself to Jesus, as he himself said, 
" The prince of this world cometh and hath noth- 
ing in me." 

Before the infant is conscious of right and 
wrong, if that unhallowed nature should be acted 
out, it does not affect its position ; for it is insen- 
sibly an off-shoot of that inherited alienation ; 
consequently it comes under the same freedom as 
those who are in bondage by birth. 

But it must not be forgotten that this freedom 
is the purchase of the Son of God ; the redemp- 
tion is in Him and not in the child. " But," says 
one, " why could not this innocent one fulfil the 
divine requirement as well as the innocent Jesus, 
who was born under the same bondage ? " 

Because with its bondage it inherited from its 
parents an alienated, corrupt nature, which would 
disqualify it from offering a pure sacrifice to God 
— a nature which Jesus did not possess. But ad- 
mitting that the child came into the world as pure 
as the babe of Bethlehem ; if the price of free- 
dom was laid on him as it was on Jesus on the 
cross, then he could fulfil it, but it would be as 
the murderer fulfils the law of his country. The 



APPENDIX. 207 

law, indeed, has no further demand on him, but it 
leaves him a dead man, with no power to return. 
In the case of the child, the demand would be an- 
swered for himself only ; and where would be the 
power or authority to purchase freedom for others ? 

The sum of our subject is, that all the descend- 
ants of Eve are born in legitimate spiritual bond- 
age and alienation, and as unable to redeem them- 
selves as Ishmael, or any other bond man ; and 
that it requires just such a character and person- 
age as the Lord Jesus Christ to effect a Redemp- 
tion ; and that he died on the cross, on Calvary, 
to consummate that redemption for all such de- 
scendants of Eve as are born into the world, and 
leave it without voluntary transgression. 

As this redemption was the purchase of Jesus, 
such are under obligations to him for their free- 
dom ; hence they all will be prepared to heartily 
unite with the celestial choir in singing, " Thou 
wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy 
blood." It may be asked, What grounds are there 
to suppose that the death of Jesus had any bear- 
ing on the salvation of these ? 

In the Mosaic ceremonial law, where Christ is 
represented in so many different capacities and 
relations to the church by different sacrifices and 
emblems, we find (Lev. v. 17-19) a provision for 
those who transgress unknowingly (and we see 
they were recognized as guilty, although morally 



208 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

they could not be so reckoned) ; and they were 
forgiven, or set free, by offering a sacrifice. 

Why this sacrifice, if it did not refer to the 
great Sacrifice on Calvary ? 

Now, as he who transgresses ignorantly cannot 
be reckoned guilty as one who transgresses wil- 
fully, it places him on a level with him who never 
transgresses, as to guilt. In that case the unin- 
tentional transgressor and the non-transgressor 
came under the same principle ; and being with 
all others, under the inherited bondage, are made 
free by the purchase of Christ. Thus we see, our 
heavenly Father has made complete provision 
for all those descendants of Eve who never com- 
mitted sin, and who transgressed unknowingly. 

But all this does not reach the case of him who 
knowingly and voluntarily sins. All must see 
that even in one such act he places himself vir- 
tually in the position of the first transgressor ; and 
if God be true, he must be treated accordingly. 
There is no mitigation. There was none for 
Adam and Eve. As soon as they committed the 
act they were doomed to the consequences. 

The voluntary transgressor by such act takes 
himself out of the position he held in common 
with the unknowing transgressor and the inno- 
cent, and assumes the prerogative to decide for 
himself whether these divine commands shall be 
obeyed or neglected ; and possessing the inherited 



APPENDIX. 209 

alienation to the divine character and govern- 
ment, he, like the original Mother and Father, 
voluntarily renounces the will of his Creator, and 
follows his own, which, contrary to the admoni- 
tions of his conscience, leads him into transgres- 
sion. 

As to the results of the offence, they may be 
more or less immediate. In fact, we may say the 
consequences of transgression are seldom rightly 
apprehended by the doer until the mind is illu- 
mined by the Comforter. When the offender 
rightly views the wrong, its nature and the conse- 
quences, he inherently disapproves of it, and re- 
grets that he has been an actor therein. If he is 
sincere and hearty in this contrition that he not 
only acted wrong in neglecting his heavenly Fa- 
ther's directions, but that he had a disposition so 
to do, he will condemn himself for having indulged 
in such motives. The measure of his contrition 
will be in proportion to his perception of that dis- 
position, the act, and the results. Now, if the 
man is really contrite (it is not material as to the 
degree), it will be seen that he is morally a 
changed man. He disapproves of every feeling 
and act contrary to the divine will. He now 
takes sides with Jesus and his Father. Now he 
is a suitable subject to come under the freedom 
purchased by Christ ; and as those acts of disobe- 
dience were the offspring of that inherited aliena- 
14 



2IO BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

tion, and as the man voluntarily condemns them, 
they also can be reckoned with the nature of the 
man. 

But could his tears of contrition release him 
from the sentence, " In the day thou eatest 
thereof thou shalt surely die ? " We have seen 
that he has placed himself in the position of the 
first pair. Could repentance, however sincere, 
redeem them from under that sentence ? Does 
the repentance of a criminal redeem him from the 
sentence of the law ? 

Thus the man sees himself condemned. He 
has broken the positive command of his almighty 
Creator, and is powerless to make any amends. 
He can use the words of the jailer at Philippi, 
" Sirs, what must I do to be saved ? " Just at 
this point he can hear Jesus saying, " Come unto 
me, all ye that labor, and I will give you rest." 

As the man has always been a stranger to Je- 
sus, he may ask, " Who art thou, that canst give 
such a kind invitation ? " It would be answered, 
" I am Jesus, your Brother. I was one with my 
Father in creating the world, in creating your 
original father, placing him in that beautiful gar- 
den, with everything that was needful for him 
and his companion. We gave him a volition as a 
rational and moral being, and we knew, if he had 
the power to use his volition for good, he could 
use it for evil. Hence we threw around him all 



APPENDIX. 2 1 1 

the influence, we could, in order to induce him to 
use it for his best good. And to further prevent 
his making a bad use of his privilege, we selected 
two trees, prominent in the garden. We named 
one the Tree of Life, and the other the Tree of 
Knowledge of Good and Evil. We said, ' Behold 
these trees ; they are emblems of What their 
names bespeak. . There is the Tree of Life. So 
long as you live in fellowship and harmony with 
us, following strictly our directions, you shall eat 
of that tree, for you are heirs of eternal life. The 
other, the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, 
is also an emblem of what its name would indi- 
cate — knowledge of good and evil. You know 
' good ; ' be content with that, for if you aspire 
also after knowledge of evil, you will surely die, 
for in your purity you cannot know evil without 
experiencing it. 

" But, notwithstanding all our precautions, your 
first parents were enticed ; they sought the for- 
bidden thing, and obtained the knowledge of evil. 
Of necessity, we could not associate with evil, 
and were compelled to cast them off, and pro- 
hibit them from further access to the Tree of 
Life. Thus the original pair fell under the sen- 
tence announced to them in the garden, and only 
awaited its execution. And as all their posterity 
would be born under the same bondage, it was 
arranged between my Father and myself that I 



212 BIBLICAL STANDPOINT. 

should be born of one of their children, and inherit 
thus, with them, their state of bondage, that I, a 
bond man, might legally fulfil that sentence in 
their behalf. ' When the fullness of time was 
come/ my Father sent me, as we had mutually 
agreed. I went forth and met the requirement 
of the fatal sentence on Calvary. It was severe 
in the extreme, but the severest of all was, to be 
forsaken of my dearest Father. I had not till 
then known the pangs of the soul under the con- 
sciousness of being forsaken of God. My Father 
could not in any form assist me, nor even sympa- 
thize with me in my then condition. I was now 
fulfilling that sentence of ours, ' Thou shalt surely 
die ; ' and while in that state, He could not only 
show no sympathy, but could not allow me as a 
man to have place in His kingdom. No ; how- 
ever much he loved me.* " He must cast me off; 
for the nature of that kingdom was such that it 
could not admit of an execution within its holy 
province : that would mar its purity. Although 
I never committed an offence, yet having been 
" made of a woman, made under the law,' I must 
be considered in bondage, in the eye of that law, 

* Abraham loved his darling son no less when he stretched 
forth his hand to slaj him than at other times. So the Fa- 
ther's love for Jesus, his only-begotten son, was no less 
when He was obliged to forsake him than when He was 
with him in the creation. 



APPENDIX. 213 

until I had met its demands. In that crisis, I 
could receive no help nor sympathy from my 
Father. 

" Thus I was left to 'tread the wine-press alone.' 
In me the sentence was fulfilled in its letter and 
its spirit. I was under the effect of that inexora- 
ble edict whose sentence was death. I died un- 
der it ; having, as man, no power of help for my- 
self. My Father had given me 'all power in 
heaven and in earth.' By that power I could 
' burst the bars of death,' descend to earth, rean- 
imate and re-enter that body, and set all its func- 
tions in operation again ; could walk about on the 
earth, could talk and act in all respects as before 
I passed through that ordeal on the cross. 

" And now, my much loved brother-man, I offer 
all to you. You see you have no power to redeem 
yourself. No other being in the universe, besides 
myself, can do this. I invite, I entreat you then, 
brother-man, to accept freedom at a Brother's 
hands. My Father has authorized me to extend 
this invitation to one and all ; and if accepted, to 
bestow the boon of redemption and fellowship 
with US. To accept this must be a voluntary 
act ; each individual must act for himself." 























■ 



I 



I ■ 






■ 



■ 












■ ■ ■ 

i ■ 

■ 




I . 




m 






HMC 






